|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On March 05 2014 04:31 CannonsNCarriers wrote:Show nested quote +On March 05 2014 04:17 Danglars wrote:
It's more about how much you want to explain away Obama's record on the bubble burst or maybe opposition from the Republicans. Record low home ownership rate across three administrations, 50% increase of Americans on food stamps. On jobs, lowest labor force participation since Jimmy Carter ... working age Americans that just don't have a job. Also, in 2013, 87% of those new jobs created since he took office were part time. Declines in median household income (~4k) and 53% of all American workers making less than $30k a year. It's not a pretty picture, and everybody I talk to peddle the line, "We didn't know it was going to be that bad, Obama did everything he could've."
And if I read jellojello right, it was more about the "drama and lies." If you like your health plan, you can keep it, right? Considering his current job approval numbers, maybe its his supporters that are getting the record wrong. Its all nice and fun supporting social justice and all until the ACA taxes you (redistributes your income, if you prefer) to subsidize others. Where is your baseline for judging Obama? Is it 2007? Is it 2008? Is it 2009? I think the fair place to judge Obama starts when his stimulus was passed. Since then, the numbers are all up. Liberals in this thread don't even let me use FY 2009 as an Obama year. It wasn't even 50 pages ago when it was claimed that was mostly Bush even though stimulus got passed that year. The numbers I cited in response to you are since Obama assumed office. Workforce participation rate, vast majority of new jobs part time, drops in median household income, distribution of incomes, and all the rest. Even the poverty rate is up if you want to go that route. For unemployment, if so many hadn't dropped out and stopped looking for jobs, you would be looking at circa 11% unemployment. Teenage unemployment is also up over the term. It is not a universally bright picture. The only silver lining for America is some stalling of big social programs since Republicans have the house, Obama's approval numbers are so low, and there's still anger at ACA (Back in December, they dropped below Bush's). If Democrats can't push as many big spending packages in the coming months, Obama's economy numbers could improve. We'd already be way lower at this moment had Obama not unconstitutionally rewritten his ACA, delaying the employer mandate and others.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
you can use any fiscal year you want as long as you don't falsely attribute causes to the numbers.
|
United States43964 Posts
People seem to forget the Russian perspective here. They've seen Eastern Germany reunify with the West to reform the most dangerous military threat there has ever been to Russia, a unified Germany. They've seen NATO in the Balkans. Poland, much of the Balkans and the Baltic states have joined the EU and will forever be beyond their reach, both militarily and economically. The US has troops and a friendly government installed in Afghanistan where thirty years ago Soviet soldiers were. And now even their Black Sea fleet and the Ukraine, the heartland of the Rus, are falling outside the Russian sphere. People talk about American weakness when from the Russian perspective there has been nothing but bad news as their influence is pushed back further and further. Putin has drawn the line at the Crimea and while it's obviously a violation of national sovereignty and international law it's not the worst result ever for the US.
|
On March 05 2014 11:31 KwarK wrote:
People seem to forget the Russian perspective here. They've seen Eastern Germany reunify with the West to reform the most dangerous military threat there has ever been to Russia, a unified Germany. They've seen NATO in the Balkans. Poland, much of the Balkans and the Baltic states have joined the EU and will forever be beyond their reach, both militarily and economically. The US has troops and a friendly government installed in Afghanistan where thirty years ago Soviet soldiers were. And now even their Black Sea fleet and the Ukraine, the heartland of the Rus, are falling outside the Russian sphere. People talk about American weakness when from the Russian perspective there has been nothing but bad news as their influence is pushed back further and further. Putin has drawn the line at the Crimea and while it's obviously a violation of national sovereignty and international law it's not the worst result ever for the US.
Right, and if they stopped being assholes, they could be a part of the West. The Russians, and only the Russians, are responsible for their adversarial relationship with the West.
|
KwarK but Russia lost it's influence for a reason: It's a pretty fucked up country. Corrupt state capitalism is not really working out and all the country is clinging to is it's oil and gas resources. If Russia doesn't want to feel threatened by the West all it has to do is open up, be less corrupt and open, and Europe would be really happy. What is Russia expecting? That Europe passes homophobic laws and joins the scumbag Eurasia league?
If Putin wants to build a tsarist utopia , he shouldn't be too surprised if the west is not respecting that. The ex-soviet countries are only turning away from Russia because their chances to prosper are better when they side with Europe.
Also: mighty reunified Germany is probably as dangerous as Belgium.
|
Hong Kong9174 Posts
On March 05 2014 11:31 KwarK wrote:
People seem to forget the Russian perspective here. They've seen Eastern Germany reunify with the West to reform the most dangerous military threat there has ever been to Russia, a unified Germany. They've seen NATO in the Balkans. Poland, much of the Balkans and the Baltic states have joined the EU and will forever be beyond their reach, both militarily and economically. The US has troops and a friendly government installed in Afghanistan where thirty years ago Soviet soldiers were. And now even their Black Sea fleet and the Ukraine, the heartland of the Rus, are falling outside the Russian sphere. People talk about American weakness when from the Russian perspective there has been nothing but bad news as their influence is pushed back further and further. Putin has drawn the line at the Crimea and while it's obviously a violation of national sovereignty and international law it's not the worst result ever for the US.
If your argument here is 'we should let them have this one because aww they've been beat up' then sure. Only after we've incurred a heavy hard and soft power toll on them as retaliation, however.
Not even a warm-water port for their rust bucket of an irrelevant fleet will be worth the decades of work they've thrown away.
IR is a zero-sum game. You don't give things away for free. Emperically, they never have allowed the same fantastical courtesy for us, at any rate.
|
On March 05 2014 11:31 KwarK wrote:
People seem to forget the Russian perspective here. They've seen Eastern Germany reunify with the West to reform the most dangerous military threat there has ever been to Russia, a unified Germany. They've seen NATO in the Balkans. Poland, much of the Balkans and the Baltic states have joined the EU and will forever be beyond their reach, both militarily and economically. The US has troops and a friendly government installed in Afghanistan where thirty years ago Soviet soldiers were. And now even their Black Sea fleet and the Ukraine, the heartland of the Rus, are falling outside the Russian sphere. People talk about American weakness when from the Russian perspective there has been nothing but bad news as their influence is pushed back further and further. Putin has drawn the line at the Crimea and while it's obviously a violation of national sovereignty and international law it's not the worst result ever for the US.
This is the perspective of who in Russia? Some random elite that is still pretending its the 19th century? Look at the Germans, evil as fuck in the 19th and early 20th century. And then they learned their lesson, transferred all their warmongering and hate into making fine cars and so so wine and now they have achieved something their mongering has never achieved: domination over Europe. From Lisbon to Athens, Germans speak and the Europeans listen.
|
On March 05 2014 11:13 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On March 05 2014 04:31 CannonsNCarriers wrote:On March 05 2014 04:17 Danglars wrote:
It's more about how much you want to explain away Obama's record on the bubble burst or maybe opposition from the Republicans. Record low home ownership rate across three administrations, 50% increase of Americans on food stamps. On jobs, lowest labor force participation since Jimmy Carter ... working age Americans that just don't have a job. Also, in 2013, 87% of those new jobs created since he took office were part time. Declines in median household income (~4k) and 53% of all American workers making less than $30k a year. It's not a pretty picture, and everybody I talk to peddle the line, "We didn't know it was going to be that bad, Obama did everything he could've."
And if I read jellojello right, it was more about the "drama and lies." If you like your health plan, you can keep it, right? Considering his current job approval numbers, maybe its his supporters that are getting the record wrong. Its all nice and fun supporting social justice and all until the ACA taxes you (redistributes your income, if you prefer) to subsidize others. Where is your baseline for judging Obama? Is it 2007? Is it 2008? Is it 2009? I think the fair place to judge Obama starts when his stimulus was passed. Since then, the numbers are all up. Liberals in this thread don't even let me use FY 2009 as an Obama year. It wasn't even 50 pages ago when it was claimed that was mostly Bush even though stimulus got passed that year. The numbers I cited in response to you are since Obama assumed office. Workforce participation rate, vast majority of new jobs part time, drops in median household income, distribution of incomes, and all the rest. Even the poverty rate is up if you want to go that route. For unemployment, if so many hadn't dropped out and stopped looking for jobs, you would be looking at circa 11% unemployment. Teenage unemployment is also up over the term. It is not a universally bright picture. The only silver lining for America is some stalling of big social programs since Republicans have the house, Obama's approval numbers are so low, and there's still anger at ACA (Back in December, they dropped below Bush's). If Democrats can't push as many big spending packages in the coming months, Obama's economy numbers could improve. We'd already be way lower at this moment had Obama not unconstitutionally rewritten his ACA, delaying the employer mandate and others.
If you think the difference between the anemic economy we have now and strong job growth is a little spending on entitlements you are sorely mistaken. It took more than 36 months for the job losses to stop after the early 2000s recession. Jobless recoveries are a firmly set fixture of recessions since the late 20th century. Technological obsolescence, increasing productivity, and outsourcing (a feature of neoliberal globalization) are serious disruptions that aren't going anywhere. Energy prices are on a sawtooth rise that, barring some kind of technological miracle, are only going to continue going up. More importantly, any financial crisis in the near to medium term is going to send energy prices through the roof (check the price of a bbl of oil over the last decade), as energy prices are very sensitive to economic distress. This is partly because of the increasing need for infrastructure to extract energy reserves and a diminishing energy return on investment in shale oil, tar sands, and gas. There are global, systemic problems with the economy that cannot be fixed by a few policy changes from an American president.
|
On March 05 2014 10:21 Adreme wrote:Show nested quote +On March 05 2014 08:49 jellyjello wrote:On March 05 2014 05:25 aksfjh wrote:On March 05 2014 04:31 CannonsNCarriers wrote:On March 05 2014 04:17 Danglars wrote:
It's more about how much you want to explain away Obama's record on the bubble burst or maybe opposition from the Republicans. Record low home ownership rate across three administrations, 50% increase of Americans on food stamps. On jobs, lowest labor force participation since Jimmy Carter ... working age Americans that just don't have a job. Also, in 2013, 87% of those new jobs created since he took office were part time. Declines in median household income (~4k) and 53% of all American workers making less than $30k a year. It's not a pretty picture, and everybody I talk to peddle the line, "We didn't know it was going to be that bad, Obama did everything he could've."
And if I read jellojello right, it was more about the "drama and lies." If you like your health plan, you can keep it, right? Considering his current job approval numbers, maybe its his supporters that are getting the record wrong. Its all nice and fun supporting social justice and all until the ACA taxes you (redistributes your income, if you prefer) to subsidize others. Where is your baseline for judging Obama? Is it 2007? Is it 2008? Is it 2009? I think the fair place to judge Obama starts when his stimulus was passed. Since then, the numbers are all up. It's futile to play this game with Republicans. If you point out the fact he inherited a nosediving economy with an already unbalanced budget, "Bush left office 5 years ago! When does Obama start taking responsibility?!" When you point out that Republicans in Congress have done nothing but oppose him and everything he touches (including further economic growth policies), "Obama refuses to negotiate with Republicans! He doesn't take us seriously!" When you point out that Obamacare was originally a Republican idea taken seriously, "Not a single Republican voted for it! By definition it's not 'bipartisan' or Republican in origin!" When you point out how well he did with the budget (to the ire of many Democrats), "We'll still go bankrupt in 25 years when Medicare and Social Security explode! He's done nothing to solve our long term problems!" Obama can do nothing right in the eyes of 30-40% of the US. Using "facts" to support any claim otherwise just causes them to double down on something else, or change the subject to such diversions as Benghazi or the IRS 501(c)4 inquiries. LOL, I love this argument of how nothing gets done in the Hill and it's all because of Republicans opposing Obama and Democrats.  The president isn't a king who can rule by decree it requires the sides to work together and since barring extraordinary circumstance the speaker of house wont put a bill forward in the house without a majority of his parties support and a majority of the party will not work with president on anything you basically will get nothing done at all. That is why it always amuses me when the news at the start of the year tries to say that "this year will be different" because it wont because the house wont do anything and if they did you still need 60 votes in the senate.
Ridiculous. That's what the opposing party does all the time. Both Republicans and Democrats do it. That's politics in two party system, period. What's lacking in the past 5-6 years is the leadership that stems from the White house. It's true that Republicans have done their best to block any legislative achievements by Obama administration, but what else are they supposed to do? Roll over and play dead?
Both Reagan and Clinton went through the same scenario, but they were able to bring both parties together and get things done. If you really believe that the current (and past) political stalemate is all on the Republicans, then you really need to take off your crimson glasses and stop drinking the DNC kool aid.
|
On March 05 2014 12:43 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On March 05 2014 11:13 Danglars wrote:On March 05 2014 04:31 CannonsNCarriers wrote:On March 05 2014 04:17 Danglars wrote:
It's more about how much you want to explain away Obama's record on the bubble burst or maybe opposition from the Republicans. Record low home ownership rate across three administrations, 50% increase of Americans on food stamps. On jobs, lowest labor force participation since Jimmy Carter ... working age Americans that just don't have a job. Also, in 2013, 87% of those new jobs created since he took office were part time. Declines in median household income (~4k) and 53% of all American workers making less than $30k a year. It's not a pretty picture, and everybody I talk to peddle the line, "We didn't know it was going to be that bad, Obama did everything he could've."
And if I read jellojello right, it was more about the "drama and lies." If you like your health plan, you can keep it, right? Considering his current job approval numbers, maybe its his supporters that are getting the record wrong. Its all nice and fun supporting social justice and all until the ACA taxes you (redistributes your income, if you prefer) to subsidize others. Where is your baseline for judging Obama? Is it 2007? Is it 2008? Is it 2009? I think the fair place to judge Obama starts when his stimulus was passed. Since then, the numbers are all up. Liberals in this thread don't even let me use FY 2009 as an Obama year. It wasn't even 50 pages ago when it was claimed that was mostly Bush even though stimulus got passed that year. The numbers I cited in response to you are since Obama assumed office. Workforce participation rate, vast majority of new jobs part time, drops in median household income, distribution of incomes, and all the rest. Even the poverty rate is up if you want to go that route. For unemployment, if so many hadn't dropped out and stopped looking for jobs, you would be looking at circa 11% unemployment. Teenage unemployment is also up over the term. It is not a universally bright picture. The only silver lining for America is some stalling of big social programs since Republicans have the house, Obama's approval numbers are so low, and there's still anger at ACA (Back in December, they dropped below Bush's). If Democrats can't push as many big spending packages in the coming months, Obama's economy numbers could improve. We'd already be way lower at this moment had Obama not unconstitutionally rewritten his ACA, delaying the employer mandate and others. If you think the difference between the anemic economy we have now and strong job growth is a little spending on entitlements you are sorely mistaken. It took more than 36 months for the job losses to stop after the early 2000s recession. Jobless recoveries are a firmly set fixture of recessions since the late 20th century. Technological obsolescence, increasing productivity, and outsourcing (a feature of neoliberal globalization) are serious disruptions that aren't going anywhere. Energy prices are on a sawtooth rise that, barring some kind of technological miracle, are only going to continue going up. More importantly, any financial crisis in the near to medium term is going to send energy prices through the roof (check the price of a bbl of oil over the last decade), as energy prices are very sensitive to economic distress. This is partly because of the increasing need for infrastructure to extract energy reserves and a diminishing energy return on investment in shale oil, tar sands, and gas. There are global, systemic problems with the economy that cannot be fixed by a few policy changes from an American president.
During the last financial crisis a barrel of oil fell to $35 in late 2008. Financial crises do not lead to increased commodity prices. Long run future projections of unrestrained growth (early 2008's $140 a barrel) lead to soaring commodity prices. Commodities are a read on the market's guess on future demand.
|
On March 05 2014 12:47 jellyjello wrote:Show nested quote +On March 05 2014 10:21 Adreme wrote:On March 05 2014 08:49 jellyjello wrote:On March 05 2014 05:25 aksfjh wrote:On March 05 2014 04:31 CannonsNCarriers wrote:On March 05 2014 04:17 Danglars wrote:
It's more about how much you want to explain away Obama's record on the bubble burst or maybe opposition from the Republicans. Record low home ownership rate across three administrations, 50% increase of Americans on food stamps. On jobs, lowest labor force participation since Jimmy Carter ... working age Americans that just don't have a job. Also, in 2013, 87% of those new jobs created since he took office were part time. Declines in median household income (~4k) and 53% of all American workers making less than $30k a year. It's not a pretty picture, and everybody I talk to peddle the line, "We didn't know it was going to be that bad, Obama did everything he could've."
And if I read jellojello right, it was more about the "drama and lies." If you like your health plan, you can keep it, right? Considering his current job approval numbers, maybe its his supporters that are getting the record wrong. Its all nice and fun supporting social justice and all until the ACA taxes you (redistributes your income, if you prefer) to subsidize others. Where is your baseline for judging Obama? Is it 2007? Is it 2008? Is it 2009? I think the fair place to judge Obama starts when his stimulus was passed. Since then, the numbers are all up. It's futile to play this game with Republicans. If you point out the fact he inherited a nosediving economy with an already unbalanced budget, "Bush left office 5 years ago! When does Obama start taking responsibility?!" When you point out that Republicans in Congress have done nothing but oppose him and everything he touches (including further economic growth policies), "Obama refuses to negotiate with Republicans! He doesn't take us seriously!" When you point out that Obamacare was originally a Republican idea taken seriously, "Not a single Republican voted for it! By definition it's not 'bipartisan' or Republican in origin!" When you point out how well he did with the budget (to the ire of many Democrats), "We'll still go bankrupt in 25 years when Medicare and Social Security explode! He's done nothing to solve our long term problems!" Obama can do nothing right in the eyes of 30-40% of the US. Using "facts" to support any claim otherwise just causes them to double down on something else, or change the subject to such diversions as Benghazi or the IRS 501(c)4 inquiries. LOL, I love this argument of how nothing gets done in the Hill and it's all because of Republicans opposing Obama and Democrats. The president isn't a king who can rule by decree it requires the sides to work together and since barring extraordinary circumstance the speaker of house wont put a bill forward in the house without a majority of his parties support and a majority of the party will not work with president on anything you basically will get nothing done at all. That is why it always amuses me when the news at the start of the year tries to say that "this year will be different" because it wont because the house wont do anything and if they did you still need 60 votes in the senate. Ridiculous. That's what the opposing party does all the time. Both Republicans and Democrats do it. That's politics in two party system, period. What's lacking in the past 5-6 years is the leadership that stems from the White house. It's true that Republicans have done their best to block any legislative achievements by Obama administration, but what else are they supposed to do? Roll over and play dead? Both Reagan and Clinton went through the same scenario, but they were able to bring both parties together and get things done. If you really believe that the current (and past) political stalemate is all on the Republicans, then you really need to take off your crimson glasses and stop drinking the DNC kool aid.
Damn. I forgot the, "Obama lacks the ability to lead from the White House!" line. It's so hard to keep up with the deflections. Never mind that all the facts point to an unprecedented obstructionist party and the least productive Congress in history, it HAS to be Obama's inability to lead a party he isn't the head of.
|
On March 05 2014 13:26 CannonsNCarriers wrote:Show nested quote +On March 05 2014 12:43 IgnE wrote:On March 05 2014 11:13 Danglars wrote:On March 05 2014 04:31 CannonsNCarriers wrote:On March 05 2014 04:17 Danglars wrote:
It's more about how much you want to explain away Obama's record on the bubble burst or maybe opposition from the Republicans. Record low home ownership rate across three administrations, 50% increase of Americans on food stamps. On jobs, lowest labor force participation since Jimmy Carter ... working age Americans that just don't have a job. Also, in 2013, 87% of those new jobs created since he took office were part time. Declines in median household income (~4k) and 53% of all American workers making less than $30k a year. It's not a pretty picture, and everybody I talk to peddle the line, "We didn't know it was going to be that bad, Obama did everything he could've."
And if I read jellojello right, it was more about the "drama and lies." If you like your health plan, you can keep it, right? Considering his current job approval numbers, maybe its his supporters that are getting the record wrong. Its all nice and fun supporting social justice and all until the ACA taxes you (redistributes your income, if you prefer) to subsidize others. Where is your baseline for judging Obama? Is it 2007? Is it 2008? Is it 2009? I think the fair place to judge Obama starts when his stimulus was passed. Since then, the numbers are all up. Liberals in this thread don't even let me use FY 2009 as an Obama year. It wasn't even 50 pages ago when it was claimed that was mostly Bush even though stimulus got passed that year. The numbers I cited in response to you are since Obama assumed office. Workforce participation rate, vast majority of new jobs part time, drops in median household income, distribution of incomes, and all the rest. Even the poverty rate is up if you want to go that route. For unemployment, if so many hadn't dropped out and stopped looking for jobs, you would be looking at circa 11% unemployment. Teenage unemployment is also up over the term. It is not a universally bright picture. The only silver lining for America is some stalling of big social programs since Republicans have the house, Obama's approval numbers are so low, and there's still anger at ACA (Back in December, they dropped below Bush's). If Democrats can't push as many big spending packages in the coming months, Obama's economy numbers could improve. We'd already be way lower at this moment had Obama not unconstitutionally rewritten his ACA, delaying the employer mandate and others. If you think the difference between the anemic economy we have now and strong job growth is a little spending on entitlements you are sorely mistaken. It took more than 36 months for the job losses to stop after the early 2000s recession. Jobless recoveries are a firmly set fixture of recessions since the late 20th century. Technological obsolescence, increasing productivity, and outsourcing (a feature of neoliberal globalization) are serious disruptions that aren't going anywhere. Energy prices are on a sawtooth rise that, barring some kind of technological miracle, are only going to continue going up. More importantly, any financial crisis in the near to medium term is going to send energy prices through the roof (check the price of a bbl of oil over the last decade), as energy prices are very sensitive to economic distress. This is partly because of the increasing need for infrastructure to extract energy reserves and a diminishing energy return on investment in shale oil, tar sands, and gas. There are global, systemic problems with the economy that cannot be fixed by a few policy changes from an American president. During the last financial crisis a barrel of oil fell to $35 in late 2008. Financial crises do not lead to increased commodity prices. Long run future projections of unrestrained growth (early 2008's $140 a barrel) lead to soaring commodity prices. Commodities are a read on the market's guess on future demand.
True, in the short term prices fall. But when prices bottom out companies stop investing. Short-term price floors kill nascent industries and reduce new infrastructure to increase capacity. You would likely see increased use of coal and other dirty energy sources, and reduced concern for efficiency. The overall decline in oil production that we've seen from current oil producing fields picks up, and you risk a serious spike in overall energy prices later on down the road, putting a serious barrier in front of any traditional economic recovery.
|
On March 05 2014 13:59 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On March 05 2014 13:26 CannonsNCarriers wrote:On March 05 2014 12:43 IgnE wrote:On March 05 2014 11:13 Danglars wrote:On March 05 2014 04:31 CannonsNCarriers wrote:On March 05 2014 04:17 Danglars wrote:
It's more about how much you want to explain away Obama's record on the bubble burst or maybe opposition from the Republicans. Record low home ownership rate across three administrations, 50% increase of Americans on food stamps. On jobs, lowest labor force participation since Jimmy Carter ... working age Americans that just don't have a job. Also, in 2013, 87% of those new jobs created since he took office were part time. Declines in median household income (~4k) and 53% of all American workers making less than $30k a year. It's not a pretty picture, and everybody I talk to peddle the line, "We didn't know it was going to be that bad, Obama did everything he could've."
And if I read jellojello right, it was more about the "drama and lies." If you like your health plan, you can keep it, right? Considering his current job approval numbers, maybe its his supporters that are getting the record wrong. Its all nice and fun supporting social justice and all until the ACA taxes you (redistributes your income, if you prefer) to subsidize others. Where is your baseline for judging Obama? Is it 2007? Is it 2008? Is it 2009? I think the fair place to judge Obama starts when his stimulus was passed. Since then, the numbers are all up. Liberals in this thread don't even let me use FY 2009 as an Obama year. It wasn't even 50 pages ago when it was claimed that was mostly Bush even though stimulus got passed that year. The numbers I cited in response to you are since Obama assumed office. Workforce participation rate, vast majority of new jobs part time, drops in median household income, distribution of incomes, and all the rest. Even the poverty rate is up if you want to go that route. For unemployment, if so many hadn't dropped out and stopped looking for jobs, you would be looking at circa 11% unemployment. Teenage unemployment is also up over the term. It is not a universally bright picture. The only silver lining for America is some stalling of big social programs since Republicans have the house, Obama's approval numbers are so low, and there's still anger at ACA (Back in December, they dropped below Bush's). If Democrats can't push as many big spending packages in the coming months, Obama's economy numbers could improve. We'd already be way lower at this moment had Obama not unconstitutionally rewritten his ACA, delaying the employer mandate and others. If you think the difference between the anemic economy we have now and strong job growth is a little spending on entitlements you are sorely mistaken. It took more than 36 months for the job losses to stop after the early 2000s recession. Jobless recoveries are a firmly set fixture of recessions since the late 20th century. Technological obsolescence, increasing productivity, and outsourcing (a feature of neoliberal globalization) are serious disruptions that aren't going anywhere. Energy prices are on a sawtooth rise that, barring some kind of technological miracle, are only going to continue going up. More importantly, any financial crisis in the near to medium term is going to send energy prices through the roof (check the price of a bbl of oil over the last decade), as energy prices are very sensitive to economic distress. This is partly because of the increasing need for infrastructure to extract energy reserves and a diminishing energy return on investment in shale oil, tar sands, and gas. There are global, systemic problems with the economy that cannot be fixed by a few policy changes from an American president. During the last financial crisis a barrel of oil fell to $35 in late 2008. Financial crises do not lead to increased commodity prices. Long run future projections of unrestrained growth (early 2008's $140 a barrel) lead to soaring commodity prices. Commodities are a read on the market's guess on future demand. True, in the short term prices fall. But when prices bottom out companies stop investing. Short-term price floors kill nascent industries and reduce new infrastructure to increase capacity. You would likely see increased use of coal and other dirty energy sources, and reduced concern for efficiency. The overall decline in oil production that we've seen from current oil producing fields picks up, and you risk a serious spike in overall energy prices later on down the road, putting a serious barrier in front of any traditional economic recovery.
Sure, you could have a spike down the road... or you could have low prices persist. There's no crystal ball on how that would play out.
|
On March 05 2014 14:07 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 05 2014 13:59 IgnE wrote:On March 05 2014 13:26 CannonsNCarriers wrote:On March 05 2014 12:43 IgnE wrote:On March 05 2014 11:13 Danglars wrote:On March 05 2014 04:31 CannonsNCarriers wrote:On March 05 2014 04:17 Danglars wrote:
It's more about how much you want to explain away Obama's record on the bubble burst or maybe opposition from the Republicans. Record low home ownership rate across three administrations, 50% increase of Americans on food stamps. On jobs, lowest labor force participation since Jimmy Carter ... working age Americans that just don't have a job. Also, in 2013, 87% of those new jobs created since he took office were part time. Declines in median household income (~4k) and 53% of all American workers making less than $30k a year. It's not a pretty picture, and everybody I talk to peddle the line, "We didn't know it was going to be that bad, Obama did everything he could've."
And if I read jellojello right, it was more about the "drama and lies." If you like your health plan, you can keep it, right? Considering his current job approval numbers, maybe its his supporters that are getting the record wrong. Its all nice and fun supporting social justice and all until the ACA taxes you (redistributes your income, if you prefer) to subsidize others. Where is your baseline for judging Obama? Is it 2007? Is it 2008? Is it 2009? I think the fair place to judge Obama starts when his stimulus was passed. Since then, the numbers are all up. Liberals in this thread don't even let me use FY 2009 as an Obama year. It wasn't even 50 pages ago when it was claimed that was mostly Bush even though stimulus got passed that year. The numbers I cited in response to you are since Obama assumed office. Workforce participation rate, vast majority of new jobs part time, drops in median household income, distribution of incomes, and all the rest. Even the poverty rate is up if you want to go that route. For unemployment, if so many hadn't dropped out and stopped looking for jobs, you would be looking at circa 11% unemployment. Teenage unemployment is also up over the term. It is not a universally bright picture. The only silver lining for America is some stalling of big social programs since Republicans have the house, Obama's approval numbers are so low, and there's still anger at ACA (Back in December, they dropped below Bush's). If Democrats can't push as many big spending packages in the coming months, Obama's economy numbers could improve. We'd already be way lower at this moment had Obama not unconstitutionally rewritten his ACA, delaying the employer mandate and others. If you think the difference between the anemic economy we have now and strong job growth is a little spending on entitlements you are sorely mistaken. It took more than 36 months for the job losses to stop after the early 2000s recession. Jobless recoveries are a firmly set fixture of recessions since the late 20th century. Technological obsolescence, increasing productivity, and outsourcing (a feature of neoliberal globalization) are serious disruptions that aren't going anywhere. Energy prices are on a sawtooth rise that, barring some kind of technological miracle, are only going to continue going up. More importantly, any financial crisis in the near to medium term is going to send energy prices through the roof (check the price of a bbl of oil over the last decade), as energy prices are very sensitive to economic distress. This is partly because of the increasing need for infrastructure to extract energy reserves and a diminishing energy return on investment in shale oil, tar sands, and gas. There are global, systemic problems with the economy that cannot be fixed by a few policy changes from an American president. During the last financial crisis a barrel of oil fell to $35 in late 2008. Financial crises do not lead to increased commodity prices. Long run future projections of unrestrained growth (early 2008's $140 a barrel) lead to soaring commodity prices. Commodities are a read on the market's guess on future demand. True, in the short term prices fall. But when prices bottom out companies stop investing. Short-term price floors kill nascent industries and reduce new infrastructure to increase capacity. You would likely see increased use of coal and other dirty energy sources, and reduced concern for efficiency. The overall decline in oil production that we've seen from current oil producing fields picks up, and you risk a serious spike in overall energy prices later on down the road, putting a serious barrier in front of any traditional economic recovery. Sure, you could have a spike down the road... or you could have low prices persist. There's no crystal ball on how that would play out.
If low prices persist it's because demand is in the toilet and the economy isn't picking up. If so, then the financial crisis has already dropped the coup de grâce, and energy prices won't matter much in this context.
|
On March 05 2014 11:45 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 05 2014 11:31 KwarK wrote:
People seem to forget the Russian perspective here. They've seen Eastern Germany reunify with the West to reform the most dangerous military threat there has ever been to Russia, a unified Germany. They've seen NATO in the Balkans. Poland, much of the Balkans and the Baltic states have joined the EU and will forever be beyond their reach, both militarily and economically. The US has troops and a friendly government installed in Afghanistan where thirty years ago Soviet soldiers were. And now even their Black Sea fleet and the Ukraine, the heartland of the Rus, are falling outside the Russian sphere. People talk about American weakness when from the Russian perspective there has been nothing but bad news as their influence is pushed back further and further. Putin has drawn the line at the Crimea and while it's obviously a violation of national sovereignty and international law it's not the worst result ever for the US. Right, and if they stopped being assholes, they could be a part of the West. The Russians, and only the Russians, are responsible for their adversarial relationship with the West.
Brings up an interesting question I never really gave much thought to. Why doesn't Russia just kinda join the club? Do they lose a lot by doing so? What freedoms would they lose?
|
On March 05 2014 15:04 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 05 2014 11:45 xDaunt wrote:On March 05 2014 11:31 KwarK wrote:
People seem to forget the Russian perspective here. They've seen Eastern Germany reunify with the West to reform the most dangerous military threat there has ever been to Russia, a unified Germany. They've seen NATO in the Balkans. Poland, much of the Balkans and the Baltic states have joined the EU and will forever be beyond their reach, both militarily and economically. The US has troops and a friendly government installed in Afghanistan where thirty years ago Soviet soldiers were. And now even their Black Sea fleet and the Ukraine, the heartland of the Rus, are falling outside the Russian sphere. People talk about American weakness when from the Russian perspective there has been nothing but bad news as their influence is pushed back further and further. Putin has drawn the line at the Crimea and while it's obviously a violation of national sovereignty and international law it's not the worst result ever for the US. Right, and if they stopped being assholes, they could be a part of the West. The Russians, and only the Russians, are responsible for their adversarial relationship with the West. Brings up an interesting question I never really gave much thought to. Why doesn't Russia just kinda join the club? Do they lose a lot by doing so? What freedoms would they lose?
They'd lose their freedom to pursue autocratic, imperialist, and expansionist policies that have been Russian trademarks for a few centuries.
|
On March 05 2014 14:26 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On March 05 2014 14:07 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On March 05 2014 13:59 IgnE wrote:On March 05 2014 13:26 CannonsNCarriers wrote:On March 05 2014 12:43 IgnE wrote:On March 05 2014 11:13 Danglars wrote:On March 05 2014 04:31 CannonsNCarriers wrote:On March 05 2014 04:17 Danglars wrote:
It's more about how much you want to explain away Obama's record on the bubble burst or maybe opposition from the Republicans. Record low home ownership rate across three administrations, 50% increase of Americans on food stamps. On jobs, lowest labor force participation since Jimmy Carter ... working age Americans that just don't have a job. Also, in 2013, 87% of those new jobs created since he took office were part time. Declines in median household income (~4k) and 53% of all American workers making less than $30k a year. It's not a pretty picture, and everybody I talk to peddle the line, "We didn't know it was going to be that bad, Obama did everything he could've."
And if I read jellojello right, it was more about the "drama and lies." If you like your health plan, you can keep it, right? Considering his current job approval numbers, maybe its his supporters that are getting the record wrong. Its all nice and fun supporting social justice and all until the ACA taxes you (redistributes your income, if you prefer) to subsidize others. Where is your baseline for judging Obama? Is it 2007? Is it 2008? Is it 2009? I think the fair place to judge Obama starts when his stimulus was passed. Since then, the numbers are all up. Liberals in this thread don't even let me use FY 2009 as an Obama year. It wasn't even 50 pages ago when it was claimed that was mostly Bush even though stimulus got passed that year. The numbers I cited in response to you are since Obama assumed office. Workforce participation rate, vast majority of new jobs part time, drops in median household income, distribution of incomes, and all the rest. Even the poverty rate is up if you want to go that route. For unemployment, if so many hadn't dropped out and stopped looking for jobs, you would be looking at circa 11% unemployment. Teenage unemployment is also up over the term. It is not a universally bright picture. The only silver lining for America is some stalling of big social programs since Republicans have the house, Obama's approval numbers are so low, and there's still anger at ACA (Back in December, they dropped below Bush's). If Democrats can't push as many big spending packages in the coming months, Obama's economy numbers could improve. We'd already be way lower at this moment had Obama not unconstitutionally rewritten his ACA, delaying the employer mandate and others. If you think the difference between the anemic economy we have now and strong job growth is a little spending on entitlements you are sorely mistaken. It took more than 36 months for the job losses to stop after the early 2000s recession. Jobless recoveries are a firmly set fixture of recessions since the late 20th century. Technological obsolescence, increasing productivity, and outsourcing (a feature of neoliberal globalization) are serious disruptions that aren't going anywhere. Energy prices are on a sawtooth rise that, barring some kind of technological miracle, are only going to continue going up. More importantly, any financial crisis in the near to medium term is going to send energy prices through the roof (check the price of a bbl of oil over the last decade), as energy prices are very sensitive to economic distress. This is partly because of the increasing need for infrastructure to extract energy reserves and a diminishing energy return on investment in shale oil, tar sands, and gas. There are global, systemic problems with the economy that cannot be fixed by a few policy changes from an American president. During the last financial crisis a barrel of oil fell to $35 in late 2008. Financial crises do not lead to increased commodity prices. Long run future projections of unrestrained growth (early 2008's $140 a barrel) lead to soaring commodity prices. Commodities are a read on the market's guess on future demand. True, in the short term prices fall. But when prices bottom out companies stop investing. Short-term price floors kill nascent industries and reduce new infrastructure to increase capacity. You would likely see increased use of coal and other dirty energy sources, and reduced concern for efficiency. The overall decline in oil production that we've seen from current oil producing fields picks up, and you risk a serious spike in overall energy prices later on down the road, putting a serious barrier in front of any traditional economic recovery. Sure, you could have a spike down the road... or you could have low prices persist. There's no crystal ball on how that would play out. If low prices persist it's because demand is in the toilet and the economy isn't picking up. If so, then the financial crisis has already dropped the coup de grâce, and energy prices won't matter much in this context.
Commodity prices tend to run in long cycles that last more than one economic cycle. Many investments today will last years and so a short term dearth of investment doesn't mean a shortage later (it can but it's not a given). For example, the 90's had strong growth and low oil prices.
|
On March 05 2014 15:04 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 05 2014 11:45 xDaunt wrote:On March 05 2014 11:31 KwarK wrote:
People seem to forget the Russian perspective here. They've seen Eastern Germany reunify with the West to reform the most dangerous military threat there has ever been to Russia, a unified Germany. They've seen NATO in the Balkans. Poland, much of the Balkans and the Baltic states have joined the EU and will forever be beyond their reach, both militarily and economically. The US has troops and a friendly government installed in Afghanistan where thirty years ago Soviet soldiers were. And now even their Black Sea fleet and the Ukraine, the heartland of the Rus, are falling outside the Russian sphere. People talk about American weakness when from the Russian perspective there has been nothing but bad news as their influence is pushed back further and further. Putin has drawn the line at the Crimea and while it's obviously a violation of national sovereignty and international law it's not the worst result ever for the US. Right, and if they stopped being assholes, they could be a part of the West. The Russians, and only the Russians, are responsible for their adversarial relationship with the West. Brings up an interesting question I never really gave much thought to. Why doesn't Russia just kinda join the club? Do they lose a lot by doing so? What freedoms would they lose?
Because its not in the interest of the people who are sitting on top of it. Serious reforms mean that serious people would be in charge, not a combination of thieves and adventurists. Again -- a good example of how difficult it is to reform a country and a people is Germany. Massive, massive assholes to everyone in the late 19th and early to mid 20th century. Now paragons of democracy and efficiency.
|
On March 05 2014 15:18 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 05 2014 14:26 IgnE wrote:On March 05 2014 14:07 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On March 05 2014 13:59 IgnE wrote:On March 05 2014 13:26 CannonsNCarriers wrote:On March 05 2014 12:43 IgnE wrote:On March 05 2014 11:13 Danglars wrote:On March 05 2014 04:31 CannonsNCarriers wrote:On March 05 2014 04:17 Danglars wrote:
It's more about how much you want to explain away Obama's record on the bubble burst or maybe opposition from the Republicans. Record low home ownership rate across three administrations, 50% increase of Americans on food stamps. On jobs, lowest labor force participation since Jimmy Carter ... working age Americans that just don't have a job. Also, in 2013, 87% of those new jobs created since he took office were part time. Declines in median household income (~4k) and 53% of all American workers making less than $30k a year. It's not a pretty picture, and everybody I talk to peddle the line, "We didn't know it was going to be that bad, Obama did everything he could've."
And if I read jellojello right, it was more about the "drama and lies." If you like your health plan, you can keep it, right? Considering his current job approval numbers, maybe its his supporters that are getting the record wrong. Its all nice and fun supporting social justice and all until the ACA taxes you (redistributes your income, if you prefer) to subsidize others. Where is your baseline for judging Obama? Is it 2007? Is it 2008? Is it 2009? I think the fair place to judge Obama starts when his stimulus was passed. Since then, the numbers are all up. Liberals in this thread don't even let me use FY 2009 as an Obama year. It wasn't even 50 pages ago when it was claimed that was mostly Bush even though stimulus got passed that year. The numbers I cited in response to you are since Obama assumed office. Workforce participation rate, vast majority of new jobs part time, drops in median household income, distribution of incomes, and all the rest. Even the poverty rate is up if you want to go that route. For unemployment, if so many hadn't dropped out and stopped looking for jobs, you would be looking at circa 11% unemployment. Teenage unemployment is also up over the term. It is not a universally bright picture. The only silver lining for America is some stalling of big social programs since Republicans have the house, Obama's approval numbers are so low, and there's still anger at ACA (Back in December, they dropped below Bush's). If Democrats can't push as many big spending packages in the coming months, Obama's economy numbers could improve. We'd already be way lower at this moment had Obama not unconstitutionally rewritten his ACA, delaying the employer mandate and others. If you think the difference between the anemic economy we have now and strong job growth is a little spending on entitlements you are sorely mistaken. It took more than 36 months for the job losses to stop after the early 2000s recession. Jobless recoveries are a firmly set fixture of recessions since the late 20th century. Technological obsolescence, increasing productivity, and outsourcing (a feature of neoliberal globalization) are serious disruptions that aren't going anywhere. Energy prices are on a sawtooth rise that, barring some kind of technological miracle, are only going to continue going up. More importantly, any financial crisis in the near to medium term is going to send energy prices through the roof (check the price of a bbl of oil over the last decade), as energy prices are very sensitive to economic distress. This is partly because of the increasing need for infrastructure to extract energy reserves and a diminishing energy return on investment in shale oil, tar sands, and gas. There are global, systemic problems with the economy that cannot be fixed by a few policy changes from an American president. During the last financial crisis a barrel of oil fell to $35 in late 2008. Financial crises do not lead to increased commodity prices. Long run future projections of unrestrained growth (early 2008's $140 a barrel) lead to soaring commodity prices. Commodities are a read on the market's guess on future demand. True, in the short term prices fall. But when prices bottom out companies stop investing. Short-term price floors kill nascent industries and reduce new infrastructure to increase capacity. You would likely see increased use of coal and other dirty energy sources, and reduced concern for efficiency. The overall decline in oil production that we've seen from current oil producing fields picks up, and you risk a serious spike in overall energy prices later on down the road, putting a serious barrier in front of any traditional economic recovery. Sure, you could have a spike down the road... or you could have low prices persist. There's no crystal ball on how that would play out. If low prices persist it's because demand is in the toilet and the economy isn't picking up. If so, then the financial crisis has already dropped the coup de grâce, and energy prices won't matter much in this context. Commodity prices tend to run in long cycles that last more than one economic cycle. Many investments today will last years and so a short term dearth of investment doesn't mean a shortage later (it can but it's not a given). For example, the 90's had strong growth and low oil prices.
And 20 years ago we had a lot more oil that was available cheaply. What you said completely ignores the specifics of the fossil fuels industry (i.e. that far more rigs are needed to draw out increasingly scarce oil, far more rigs are needed to open up shale gas, investment in fracking, etc.)
![[image loading]](https://lh3.ggpht.com/-YrVzgIkuGtA/T9yL1g9mTyI/AAAAAAAAS88/yT-vcegAQPc/s1600/rig2.jpg)
This is a classic jonny retort where you pull out a business school platitude that apparently discredits what I've said but in reality has no applicability, and is relevant only in the most trivial of senses.
|
On March 05 2014 15:25 Sub40APM wrote:Show nested quote +On March 05 2014 15:04 Mohdoo wrote:On March 05 2014 11:45 xDaunt wrote:On March 05 2014 11:31 KwarK wrote:
People seem to forget the Russian perspective here. They've seen Eastern Germany reunify with the West to reform the most dangerous military threat there has ever been to Russia, a unified Germany. They've seen NATO in the Balkans. Poland, much of the Balkans and the Baltic states have joined the EU and will forever be beyond their reach, both militarily and economically. The US has troops and a friendly government installed in Afghanistan where thirty years ago Soviet soldiers were. And now even their Black Sea fleet and the Ukraine, the heartland of the Rus, are falling outside the Russian sphere. People talk about American weakness when from the Russian perspective there has been nothing but bad news as their influence is pushed back further and further. Putin has drawn the line at the Crimea and while it's obviously a violation of national sovereignty and international law it's not the worst result ever for the US. Right, and if they stopped being assholes, they could be a part of the West. The Russians, and only the Russians, are responsible for their adversarial relationship with the West. Brings up an interesting question I never really gave much thought to. Why doesn't Russia just kinda join the club? Do they lose a lot by doing so? What freedoms would they lose? Because its not in the interest of the people who are sitting on top of it. Serious reforms mean that serious people would be in charge, not a combination of thieves and adventurists. Again -- a good example of how difficult it is to reform a country and a people is Germany. Massive, massive assholes to everyone in the late 19th and early to mid 20th century. Now paragons of democracy and efficiency.
Your point of view on Germany is pretty funny.
Russia is a complicated place, and it always had complicated relationships with western europe. Back before the 1917 revolution, it was depicted as the retarded brother of europe. Most european never actually cared about Russia, and the only country who actually had some kind of ties with them was France (who financed their economy with loans).
The 1917 revolution blew all that in piece, but the instauration of a "communist" system was not accepted by its neighbour, who all attacked russia endlessly until 1930-1935.
Russian's culture is really different from western europe, they live fiercely to say the least. The geographic of the country makes a lot of things different from a political point of view. I'm not sure they ever thought themselves as part of europe.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
