On January 31 2012 14:43 BobTheBuilder1377 wrote: Maybe if you actually cited real sources instead of pulling stuff out of your ass. Then people might start to believe what you have to say. So, give me some sources please?
if all I have to do is find occasions where Ron Paul has been incorrect, this will not be very difficult.
and no one has to believe what I say. I get the impression that you are in a phase of your life where you are seeking recognition for your ability to find out things yourself and have an opinion that is not just spoon fed to you by the adults around you. for me, it is merely pleasurable to indulge in a conversation about politics and that normally means not having to prove that the mainstream theory is, in fact, widely accepted.
next you will ask me to prove that Keynes was right about anything other than the time of day. you either don't know much about econometric work and are legitimately curious (or perhaps, incredulous that you could be wrong here) or are trying to waste my time.
at any rate, feel free to put your vote behind Ron Paul. I do actually wish he would win because if this guy were a serious threat to be president all but the most libertarian of economists would be pouring out of the woodwork to explain why he would break everything.
Hey red, I'd like to ask what type of policy you'd suggest right now. Essentially every economist I've spoken to (far too many) has said that the job of the government should be to adjust the incentives so that a system that is essentially a free market can accomplish the societal expectations set out by the people. This view is much closer to what the republicans have been hanging around lately than Dems. Also what about the debt and various unfunded liabilities? I'm pretty sure that at this point basically every economist agrees that the debt has to be addressed, but the Republicans seem much more motivated on that front right now than their colleagues.
On January 31 2012 14:43 BobTheBuilder1377 wrote: Maybe if you actually cited real sources instead of pulling stuff out of your ass. Then people might start to believe what you have to say. So, give me some sources please?
if all I have to do is find occasions where Ron Paul has been incorrect, this will not be very difficult.
and no one has to believe what I say. I get the impression that you are in a phase of your life where you are seeking recognition for your ability to find out things yourself and have an opinion that is not just spoon fed to you by the adults around you. for me, it is merely pleasurable to indulge in a conversation about politics and that normally means not having to prove that the mainstream theory is, in fact, widely accepted.
next you will ask me to prove that Keynes was right about anything other than the time of day. you either don't know much about econometric work and are legitimately curious (or perhaps, incredulous that you could be wrong here) or are trying to waste my time.
at any rate, feel free to put your vote behind Ron Paul. I do actually wish he would win because if this guy were a serious threat to be president all but the most libertarian of economists would be pouring out of the woodwork to explain why he would break everything.
Your so called factcheck is wrong on so many grounds when it comes to NAFTA and a one world currency. Gloabalization eventually leads us to a one world government and currency so he's not wrong about that. Only people that are so blind about the future don't see that. You have people from China saying WW3 or One world government:
Also, it's true that we have spent trillions of dollars on wars.....I don't know why they try and say he's wrong on that when in fact we have spent a lot more than what we can as a country:
Okay I am legitimately curious now, What is it with Ron Paul supporters and random youtube videos. I swear to God that Bob here have like at least half of his posts ending off with a youtube video or something immediately followed by some variation of EDUCATE YOURSELF, BAM(Them smileys be obnoxious yo)! Then I can imagine him sliding back to his chair upright, with a sly grin on his face and secured in the knowledge that he just spread the truth to more ignorant people.
Im pretty sure you are not going for that impression, but its pretty amusing.
On January 31 2012 20:46 AUGcodon wrote: Okay I am legitimately curious now, What is it with Ron Paul supporters and random youtube videos. I swear to God that Bob here have like at least half of his posts ending off with a youtube video or something immediately followed by some variation of EDUCATE YOURSELF, BAM(Them smileys be obnoxious yo)! Then I can imagine him sliding back to his chair upright, with a sly grin on his face and secured in the knowledge that he just spread the truth to more ignorant people.
Im pretty sure you are not going for that impression, but its pretty amusing.
That's not Ron Paul supporters, that's just Bob. None of the other several dozen Ron Paul supporters here rely on biased images and youtube bites.
When you hear someone ending their post by saying "A vote for Ron Paul is a vote for peace," then you know you have a real koolaid drinker on your hands.
On February 01 2012 00:04 paralleluniverse wrote: Today's news.
Blaming the Euro economy on "austerity" is just as ignorant as blaming Obama for the US recession. Please stop these simple minded, partisan biased economic correlations.
On January 31 2012 20:46 AUGcodon wrote: Okay I am legitimately curious now, What is it with Ron Paul supporters and random youtube videos. I swear to God that Bob here have like at least half of his posts ending off with a youtube video or something immediately followed by some variation of EDUCATE YOURSELF, BAM(Them smileys be obnoxious yo)! Then I can imagine him sliding back to his chair upright, with a sly grin on his face and secured in the knowledge that he just spread the truth to more ignorant people.
Im pretty sure you are not going for that impression, but its pretty amusing.
That's not Ron Paul supporters, that's just Bob. None of the other several dozen Ron Paul supporters here rely on biased images and youtube bites.
When you hear someone ending their post by saying "A vote for Ron Paul is a vote for peace," then you know you have a real koolaid drinker on your hands.
Blaming the Euro economy on "austerity" is just as ignorant as blaming Obama for the US recession. Please stop these simple minded, partisan biased economic correlations.
Austerity wasn't the cause of the eurozone crisis, it was the response to it.
On January 31 2012 20:46 AUGcodon wrote: Okay I am legitimately curious now, What is it with Ron Paul supporters and random youtube videos. I swear to God that Bob here have like at least half of his posts ending off with a youtube video or something immediately followed by some variation of EDUCATE YOURSELF, BAM(Them smileys be obnoxious yo)! Then I can imagine him sliding back to his chair upright, with a sly grin on his face and secured in the knowledge that he just spread the truth to more ignorant people.
Im pretty sure you are not going for that impression, but its pretty amusing.
That's not Ron Paul supporters, that's just Bob. None of the other several dozen Ron Paul supporters here rely on biased images and youtube bites.
When you hear someone ending their post by saying "A vote for Ron Paul is a vote for peace," then you know you have a real koolaid drinker on your hands.
On February 01 2012 00:04 paralleluniverse wrote: Today's news.
Blaming the Euro economy on "austerity" is just as ignorant as blaming Obama for the US recession. Please stop these simple minded, partisan biased economic correlations.
Austerity wasn't the cause of the eurozone crisis, it was the response to it.
Your post said "austerity in action" and then you linked to a page that said Euro unemployment reaches all time highs. Was I wrong to assume that you were blaming austerity for some of the economic troubles?
On January 31 2012 20:46 AUGcodon wrote: Okay I am legitimately curious now, What is it with Ron Paul supporters and random youtube videos. I swear to God that Bob here have like at least half of his posts ending off with a youtube video or something immediately followed by some variation of EDUCATE YOURSELF, BAM(Them smileys be obnoxious yo)! Then I can imagine him sliding back to his chair upright, with a sly grin on his face and secured in the knowledge that he just spread the truth to more ignorant people.
Im pretty sure you are not going for that impression, but its pretty amusing.
That's not Ron Paul supporters, that's just Bob. None of the other several dozen Ron Paul supporters here rely on biased images and youtube bites.
When you hear someone ending their post by saying "A vote for Ron Paul is a vote for peace," then you know you have a real koolaid drinker on your hands.
On February 01 2012 00:04 paralleluniverse wrote: Today's news.
Blaming the Euro economy on "austerity" is just as ignorant as blaming Obama for the US recession. Please stop these simple minded, partisan biased economic correlations.
Austerity wasn't the cause of the eurozone crisis, it was the response to it.
What's the point of bringing up the Eurozone in this thread anymore? We get it, you think that Europe isn't in trouble from debt. Some people disagree. Who cares, it isn't a huge issue in the republican nomination right now.
On January 31 2012 15:43 Mordanis wrote: Hey red, I'd like to ask what type of policy you'd suggest right now. Essentially every economist I've spoken to (far too many) has said that the job of the government should be to adjust the incentives so that a system that is essentially a free market can accomplish the societal expectations set out by the people. This view is much closer to what the republicans have been hanging around lately than Dems. Also what about the debt and various unfunded liabilities? I'm pretty sure that at this point basically every economist agrees that the debt has to be addressed, but the Republicans seem much more motivated on that front right now than their colleagues.
Well if this were any time before the 1980s I would suggest a Keynesean response. However, I believe our system is so fundamentally broken that even though we could probably get back on the track we were on before with a large enough response, it would just lead to another crisis down the road.
So, at this point, I think the only appropriate policy is to essentially cut off the infected foot before it takes down the body. Make the fundamental corrections and suffer through the immense pain it will bring. What that really means is addressing the wealth situations of the desired middle class. It means accepting that our growth rate existed on the back of a negative savings rate (i.e. houses taking on debt to buy things) and can not be sustained. It means accepting that this concept that every American must own their home has to be left behind (it causes too much of a family's wealth to be tied up into one investment; one that we now see is NOT bullet proof like it was told to us). It means accepting that the federal government needs to be running a not-for-profit health insurance plan because one medical crisis WILL bankrupt most families (my grandfather had a stint put in, total cost was 50,000 dollars but luckily he can pay that) and medical costs are going out of control. It means accepting that public universities have to be free because in this country to do anything you have to go to college and to do that means mortgaging the next 20 years of your life on the chance you may get a decent job. It also means accepting that income taxes should completely displace sales taxes because we need to control the income distribution in this country through effective progressive taxation (actual top federal rate doesnt even need to exceed 15% to completely evaporate the deficit if we toss out all of the exemptions, fyi).
So do it. And hope that people will understand that they are not suffering because of ineptitude but because it has to be that way for a while so that things can get better.
The reason I dont partake in market worship is because looking at the statistics, from the 1980s we see a huge shift backwards in conditions for most people despite a continued growth in GDP. That is because free market doesnt mean the market does what it wants; it means PEOPLE do what they want. The market is free to be manipulated by those who find market power either through imperfect information or by having such large amounts of money that they can actually affect markets (very large hedge funds, companies, foreign governments, etc). Perfect markets are a joke which is why it is so distressing that so many economists seem to believe they exist. They, of all people, should know better. I really, really want to hear the explanation for why our current level of income inequality, greater incidences of poverty amongst minorities, a gutted middle class and huge personal debt, direct results of the "getting out of the way of the market" policy adopted since the Reagan administration, are a good thing.
As for the whole debt discussion, I was blindsided by it. So were a lot of the more liberal economists. Next it's going to be inflation or something ridiculous like that. These are "issues" because the Republicans are making them issues and they do such a good job at presenting a united front that it pushes the weak, dispersed Democratic party into a corner. Or crowding out. How can there be crowding out when companies are just sitting on massive stockpiles of cash instead of doing things?
This is a crisis of aggregate demand. People aren't buying stuff. So other people aren't making stuff. They aren't hiring people to make that stuff who would then buy other stuff. But that hasn't been the discussion in like a year and a half.
Cutting spending during a recession without being honest with people that things will get worse before they get better is dishonest.
I think the reason debt has taken over as such a big issue is because the Republicans have done an EXCEPTIONAL job at suggesting that our current economic situation is actually very simple to fix; we just need to deal with that pesky debt and everything will go back to the way it was!
Republicans policies appeal to two types of people: rich white men who are voting in their own interest, and people who like simple answers. Fix the debt. Repeal Obamacare. Gold standard. If only we would implement these simple changes, everything would be great again!
Where is the Republican nominee whose economic policies are more than bumper sticker sayings? Sadly, it seems to be Newt Gingrich who is displaying the most thought on most issues although none of them other than Paul have any specifics (his are unworkable + he cannot win). Some of his thoughts are a little bit out there (although a Moon colony sounds sweet). Newt is the one saying that old people are not likely to self deport, secretly treats gay people like human beings and thinks that history has more value than exploitation of votes.
I listened to an interesting piece from the BBC with an economist who said part of the big reason Merkel is choosing austerity is because her bundestag and constituency is demanding some visible austerity measures in exchange for loaning money and debt financing. It almost seems like the economist was saying Merkel had no choice with pushing the austerity measures if she still wanted to maintain her debt leverage.
On January 31 2012 15:43 Mordanis wrote: Hey red, I'd like to ask what type of policy you'd suggest right now. Essentially every economist I've spoken to (far too many) has said that the job of the government should be to adjust the incentives so that a system that is essentially a free market can accomplish the societal expectations set out by the people. This view is much closer to what the republicans have been hanging around lately than Dems. Also what about the debt and various unfunded liabilities? I'm pretty sure that at this point basically every economist agrees that the debt has to be addressed, but the Republicans seem much more motivated on that front right now than their colleagues.
Well if this were any time before the 1980s I would suggest a Keynesean response. However, I believe our system is so fundamentally broken that even though we could probably get back on the track we were on before with a large enough response, it would just lead to another crisis down the road.
So, at this point, I think the only appropriate policy is to essentially cut off the infected foot before it takes down the body. Make the fundamental corrections and suffer through the immense pain it will bring. What that really means is addressing the wealth situations of the desired middle class. It means accepting that our growth rate existed on the back of a negative savings rate (i.e. houses taking on debt to buy things) and can not be sustained. It means accepting that this concept that every American must own their home has to be left behind (it causes too much of a family's wealth to be tied up into one investment; one that we now see is NOT bullet proof like it was told to us). It means accepting that the federal government needs to be running a not-for-profit health insurance plan because one medical crisis WILL bankrupt most families (my grandfather had a stint put in, total cost was 50,000 dollars but luckily he can pay that) and medical costs are going out of control. It means accepting that public universities have to be free because in this country to do anything you have to go to college and to do that means mortgaging the next 20 years of your life on the chance you may get a decent job. It also means accepting that income taxes should completely displace sales taxes because we need to control the income distribution in this country through effective progressive taxation (actual top federal rate doesnt even need to exceed 15% to completely evaporate the deficit if we toss out all of the exemptions, fyi).
So do it. And hope that people will understand that they are not suffering because of ineptitude but because it has to be that way for a while so that things can get better.
The reason I dont partake in market worship is because looking at the statistics, from the 1980s we see a huge shift backwards in conditions for most people despite a continued growth in GDP. That is because free market doesnt mean the market does what it wants; it means PEOPLE do what they want. The market is free to be manipulated by those who find market power either through imperfect information or by having such large amounts of money that they can actually affect markets (very large hedge funds, companies, foreign governments, etc). Perfect markets are a joke which is why it is so distressing that so many economists seem to believe they exist. They, of all people, should know better. I really, really want to hear the explanation for why our current level of income inequality, greater incidences of poverty amongst minorities, a gutted middle class and huge personal debt, direct results of the "getting out of the way of the market" policy adopted since the Reagan administration, are a good thing.
As for the whole debt discussion, I was blindsided by it. So were a lot of the more liberal economists. Next it's going to be inflation or something ridiculous like that. These are "issues" because the Republicans are making them issues and they do such a good job at presenting a united front that it pushes the weak, dispersed Democratic party into a corner. Or crowding out. How can there be crowding out when companies are just sitting on massive stockpiles of cash instead of doing things?
This is a crisis of aggregate demand. People aren't buying stuff. So other people aren't making stuff. They aren't hiring people to make that stuff who would then buy other stuff. But that hasn't been the discussion in like a year and a half.
Cutting spending during a recession without being honest with people that things will get worse before they get better is dishonest.
I think the reason debt has taken over as such a big issue is because the Republicans have done an EXCEPTIONAL job at suggesting that our current economic situation is actually very simple to fix; we just need to deal with that pesky debt and everything will go back to the way it was!
Republicans policies appeal to two types of people: rich white men who are voting in their own interest, and people who like simple answers. Fix the debt. Repeal Obamacare. Gold standard. If only we would implement these simple changes, everything would be great again!
Where is the Republican nominee whose economic policies are more than bumper sticker sayings? Sadly, it seems to be Newt Gingrich who is displaying the most thought on most issues although none of them other than Paul have any specifics (his are unworkable + he cannot win). Some of his thoughts are a little bit out there (although a Moon colony sounds sweet). Newt is the one saying that old people are not likely to self deport, secretly treats gay people like human beings and thinks that history has more value than exploitation of votes.
I doubt this view will go over well in this topic. :\
On January 31 2012 15:43 Mordanis wrote: Hey red, I'd like to ask what type of policy you'd suggest right now. Essentially every economist I've spoken to (far too many) has said that the job of the government should be to adjust the incentives so that a system that is essentially a free market can accomplish the societal expectations set out by the people. This view is much closer to what the republicans have been hanging around lately than Dems. Also what about the debt and various unfunded liabilities? I'm pretty sure that at this point basically every economist agrees that the debt has to be addressed, but the Republicans seem much more motivated on that front right now than their colleagues.
Well if this were any time before the 1980s I would suggest a Keynesean response. However, I believe our system is so fundamentally broken that even though we could probably get back on the track we were on before with a large enough response, it would just lead to another crisis down the road.
So, at this point, I think the only appropriate policy is to essentially cut off the infected foot before it takes down the body. Make the fundamental corrections and suffer through the immense pain it will bring. What that really means is addressing the wealth situations of the desired middle class. It means accepting that our growth rate existed on the back of a negative savings rate (i.e. houses taking on debt to buy things) and can not be sustained. It means accepting that this concept that every American must own their home has to be left behind (it causes too much of a family's wealth to be tied up into one investment; one that we now see is NOT bullet proof like it was told to us). It means accepting that the federal government needs to be running a not-for-profit health insurance plan because one medical crisis WILL bankrupt most families (my grandfather had a stint put in, total cost was 50,000 dollars but luckily he can pay that) and medical costs are going out of control. It means accepting that public universities have to be free because in this country to do anything you have to go to college and to do that means mortgaging the next 20 years of your life on the chance you may get a decent job. It also means accepting that income taxes should completely displace sales taxes because we need to control the income distribution in this country through effective progressive taxation (actual top federal rate doesnt even need to exceed 15% to completely evaporate the deficit if we toss out all of the exemptions, fyi).
So do it. And hope that people will understand that they are not suffering because of ineptitude but because it has to be that way for a while so that things can get better.
The reason I dont partake in market worship is because looking at the statistics, from the 1980s we see a huge shift backwards in conditions for most people despite a continued growth in GDP. That is because free market doesnt mean the market does what it wants; it means PEOPLE do what they want. The market is free to be manipulated by those who find market power either through imperfect information or by having such large amounts of money that they can actually affect markets (very large hedge funds, companies, foreign governments, etc). Perfect markets are a joke which is why it is so distressing that so many economists seem to believe they exist. They, of all people, should know better. I really, really want to hear the explanation for why our current level of income inequality, greater incidences of poverty amongst minorities, a gutted middle class and huge personal debt, direct results of the "getting out of the way of the market" policy adopted since the Reagan administration, are a good thing.
As for the whole debt discussion, I was blindsided by it. So were a lot of the more liberal economists. Next it's going to be inflation or something ridiculous like that. These are "issues" because the Republicans are making them issues and they do such a good job at presenting a united front that it pushes the weak, dispersed Democratic party into a corner. Or crowding out. How can there be crowding out when companies are just sitting on massive stockpiles of cash instead of doing things?
This is a crisis of aggregate demand. People aren't buying stuff. So other people aren't making stuff. They aren't hiring people to make that stuff who would then buy other stuff. But that hasn't been the discussion in like a year and a half.
Cutting spending during a recession without being honest with people that things will get worse before they get better is dishonest.
I think the reason debt has taken over as such a big issue is because the Republicans have done an EXCEPTIONAL job at suggesting that our current economic situation is actually very simple to fix; we just need to deal with that pesky debt and everything will go back to the way it was!
Republicans policies appeal to two types of people: rich white men who are voting in their own interest, and people who like simple answers. Fix the debt. Repeal Obamacare. Gold standard. If only we would implement these simple changes, everything would be great again!
Where is the Republican nominee whose economic policies are more than bumper sticker sayings? Sadly, it seems to be Newt Gingrich who is displaying the most thought on most issues although none of them other than Paul have any specifics (his are unworkable + he cannot win). Some of his thoughts are a little bit out there (although a Moon colony sounds sweet). Newt is the one saying that old people are not likely to self deport, secretly treats gay people like human beings and thinks that history has more value than exploitation of votes.
I like the cut of your jib Red; my only point of disagreement is that most every politician tries to keep their messages in small bullet points, not just Republicans. But I believe its more of a societal problem (ie.people either don't have enough time, or would rather spend other free time doing more exciting things, or just arn't educated enough) that causes the low-attention span. Even the debates reinforce this; 30 seconds isn't much to make a grand plan in, but give someone 6 minutes and any debator worth half their salt should be able to give you a damn good outlining of their plan.
On the more amusing side, they could probably turn the Debates into a kind of Jeopardy or Family Feud.
On January 31 2012 15:43 Mordanis wrote: Hey red, I'd like to ask what type of policy you'd suggest right now. Essentially every economist I've spoken to (far too many) has said that the job of the government should be to adjust the incentives so that a system that is essentially a free market can accomplish the societal expectations set out by the people. This view is much closer to what the republicans have been hanging around lately than Dems. Also what about the debt and various unfunded liabilities? I'm pretty sure that at this point basically every economist agrees that the debt has to be addressed, but the Republicans seem much more motivated on that front right now than their colleagues.
Well if this were any time before the 1980s I would suggest a Keynesean response. However, I believe our system is so fundamentally broken that even though we could probably get back on the track we were on before with a large enough response, it would just lead to another crisis down the road.
So, at this point, I think the only appropriate policy is to essentially cut off the infected foot before it takes down the body. Make the fundamental corrections and suffer through the immense pain it will bring. What that really means is addressing the wealth situations of the desired middle class. It means accepting that our growth rate existed on the back of a negative savings rate (i.e. houses taking on debt to buy things) and can not be sustained. It means accepting that this concept that every American must own their home has to be left behind (it causes too much of a family's wealth to be tied up into one investment; one that we now see is NOT bullet proof like it was told to us). It means accepting that the federal government needs to be running a not-for-profit health insurance plan because one medical crisis WILL bankrupt most families (my grandfather had a stint put in, total cost was 50,000 dollars but luckily he can pay that) and medical costs are going out of control. It means accepting that public universities have to be free because in this country to do anything you have to go to college and to do that means mortgaging the next 20 years of your life on the chance you may get a decent job. It also means accepting that income taxes should completely displace sales taxes because we need to control the income distribution in this country through effective progressive taxation (actual top federal rate doesnt even need to exceed 15% to completely evaporate the deficit if we toss out all of the exemptions, fyi).
So do it. And hope that people will understand that they are not suffering because of ineptitude but because it has to be that way for a while so that things can get better.
The reason I dont partake in market worship is because looking at the statistics, from the 1980s we see a huge shift backwards in conditions for most people despite a continued growth in GDP. That is because free market doesnt mean the market does what it wants; it means PEOPLE do what they want. The market is free to be manipulated by those who find market power either through imperfect information or by having such large amounts of money that they can actually affect markets (very large hedge funds, companies, foreign governments, etc). Perfect markets are a joke which is why it is so distressing that so many economists seem to believe they exist. They, of all people, should know better. I really, really want to hear the explanation for why our current level of income inequality, greater incidences of poverty amongst minorities, a gutted middle class and huge personal debt, direct results of the "getting out of the way of the market" policy adopted since the Reagan administration, are a good thing.
As for the whole debt discussion, I was blindsided by it. So were a lot of the more liberal economists. Next it's going to be inflation or something ridiculous like that. These are "issues" because the Republicans are making them issues and they do such a good job at presenting a united front that it pushes the weak, dispersed Democratic party into a corner. Or crowding out. How can there be crowding out when companies are just sitting on massive stockpiles of cash instead of doing things?
This is a crisis of aggregate demand. People aren't buying stuff. So other people aren't making stuff. They aren't hiring people to make that stuff who would then buy other stuff. But that hasn't been the discussion in like a year and a half.
Cutting spending during a recession without being honest with people that things will get worse before they get better is dishonest.
I think the reason debt has taken over as such a big issue is because the Republicans have done an EXCEPTIONAL job at suggesting that our current economic situation is actually very simple to fix; we just need to deal with that pesky debt and everything will go back to the way it was!
Republicans policies appeal to two types of people: rich white men who are voting in their own interest, and people who like simple answers. Fix the debt. Repeal Obamacare. Gold standard. If only we would implement these simple changes, everything would be great again!
Where is the Republican nominee whose economic policies are more than bumper sticker sayings? Sadly, it seems to be Newt Gingrich who is displaying the most thought on most issues although none of them other than Paul have any specifics (his are unworkable + he cannot win). Some of his thoughts are a little bit out there (although a Moon colony sounds sweet). Newt is the one saying that old people are not likely to self deport, secretly treats gay people like human beings and thinks that history has more value than exploitation of votes.
I like you. What I like most about you are your sophisticated yet in plain language put arguments that make sense. This Bullshit about how the market will fix everything and the state is the devil when interfering with people´s lives in ANY way, it´s getting tiring already. Please keep posting.
On February 01 2012 02:02 aksfjh wrote: I doubt this view will go over well in this topic. :\
Im not sure that is relevant, frankly.
I will be voting (R) for president so who ultimately ends up being the nominee is relevant to me, so that's why I decided to throw my opinion in. It is possible to be very liberal and vote Republican if you believe, as I do, that it will result in the betterment of the country. My logic is considerably different than the conservatives but that does not, necessarily, make it less valid.
On January 31 2012 15:43 Mordanis wrote: Hey red, I'd like to ask what type of policy you'd suggest right now. Essentially every economist I've spoken to (far too many) has said that the job of the government should be to adjust the incentives so that a system that is essentially a free market can accomplish the societal expectations set out by the people. This view is much closer to what the republicans have been hanging around lately than Dems. Also what about the debt and various unfunded liabilities? I'm pretty sure that at this point basically every economist agrees that the debt has to be addressed, but the Republicans seem much more motivated on that front right now than their colleagues.
Well if this were any time before the 1980s I would suggest a Keynesean response. However, I believe our system is so fundamentally broken that even though we could probably get back on the track we were on before with a large enough response, it would just lead to another crisis down the road.
So, at this point, I think the only appropriate policy is to essentially cut off the infected foot before it takes down the body. Make the fundamental corrections and suffer through the immense pain it will bring. What that really means is addressing the wealth situations of the desired middle class. It means accepting that our growth rate existed on the back of a negative savings rate (i.e. houses taking on debt to buy things) and can not be sustained. It means accepting that this concept that every American must own their home has to be left behind (it causes too much of a family's wealth to be tied up into one investment; one that we now see is NOT bullet proof like it was told to us). It means accepting that the federal government needs to be running a not-for-profit health insurance plan because one medical crisis WILL bankrupt most families (my grandfather had a stint put in, total cost was 50,000 dollars but luckily he can pay that) and medical costs are going out of control. It means accepting that public universities have to be free because in this country to do anything you have to go to college and to do that means mortgaging the next 20 years of your life on the chance you may get a decent job. It also means accepting that income taxes should completely displace sales taxes because we need to control the income distribution in this country through effective progressive taxation (actual top federal rate doesnt even need to exceed 15% to completely evaporate the deficit if we toss out all of the exemptions, fyi).
So do it. And hope that people will understand that they are not suffering because of ineptitude but because it has to be that way for a while so that things can get better.
The reason I dont partake in market worship is because looking at the statistics, from the 1980s we see a huge shift backwards in conditions for most people despite a continued growth in GDP. That is because free market doesnt mean the market does what it wants; it means PEOPLE do what they want. The market is free to be manipulated by those who find market power either through imperfect information or by having such large amounts of money that they can actually affect markets (very large hedge funds, companies, foreign governments, etc). Perfect markets are a joke which is why it is so distressing that so many economists seem to believe they exist. They, of all people, should know better. I really, really want to hear the explanation for why our current level of income inequality, greater incidences of poverty amongst minorities, a gutted middle class and huge personal debt, direct results of the "getting out of the way of the market" policy adopted since the Reagan administration, are a good thing.
As for the whole debt discussion, I was blindsided by it. So were a lot of the more liberal economists. Next it's going to be inflation or something ridiculous like that. These are "issues" because the Republicans are making them issues and they do such a good job at presenting a united front that it pushes the weak, dispersed Democratic party into a corner. Or crowding out. How can there be crowding out when companies are just sitting on massive stockpiles of cash instead of doing things?
This is a crisis of aggregate demand. People aren't buying stuff. So other people aren't making stuff. They aren't hiring people to make that stuff who would then buy other stuff. But that hasn't been the discussion in like a year and a half.
Cutting spending during a recession without being honest with people that things will get worse before they get better is dishonest.
I think the reason debt has taken over as such a big issue is because the Republicans have done an EXCEPTIONAL job at suggesting that our current economic situation is actually very simple to fix; we just need to deal with that pesky debt and everything will go back to the way it was!
Republicans policies appeal to two types of people: rich white men who are voting in their own interest, and people who like simple answers. Fix the debt. Repeal Obamacare. Gold standard. If only we would implement these simple changes, everything would be great again!
Where is the Republican nominee whose economic policies are more than bumper sticker sayings? Sadly, it seems to be Newt Gingrich who is displaying the most thought on most issues although none of them other than Paul have any specifics (his are unworkable + he cannot win). Some of his thoughts are a little bit out there (although a Moon colony sounds sweet). Newt is the one saying that old people are not likely to self deport, secretly treats gay people like human beings and thinks that history has more value than exploitation of votes.
I've been trying to argue these points a number of times in this thread, and you've done a much more succinct job than I in one post, well done. I agree with pretty much everything.
On February 01 2012 02:02 aksfjh wrote: I doubt this view will go over well in this topic. :\
Im not sure that is relevant, frankly.
I will be voting (R) for president so who ultimately ends up being the nominee is relevant to me, so that's why I decided to throw my opinion in. It is possible to be very liberal and vote Republican if you believe, as I do, that it will result in the betterment of the country. My logic is considerably different than the conservatives but that does not, necessarily, make it less valid.
I never said it wasn't a valid point of view, nor that I disagree with it. I have said much more moderate things in this topic and have been criticized by many for them. I was merely stating how I thought the staunch conservative posters would react to your statement. On the bright side, it seems you have caught most of them sleeping. =P
Personally, I agree with much of what you said, except for a "Keynesian" (which I read as New Keynesian) response would lead to a greater crisis down the road. Beyond that, much of what you said resonates with my core philosophy. Even whenif deciding who to vote for, I don't vote down party or ideological lines. However, in the breadth of this topic and the candidate choices at hand, I believe a democrat would be better suited for the presidency if the congress should shift more red (or stay the same). This is due to my belief that divided branches tend to give us the best results.
Well if this were any time before the 1980s I would suggest a Keynesean response. However, I believe our system is so fundamentally broken that even though we could probably get back on the track we were on before with a large enough response, it would just lead to another crisis down the road.
So, at this point, I think the only appropriate policy is to essentially cut off the infected foot before it takes down the body. Make the fundamental corrections and suffer through the immense pain it will bring. What that really means is addressing the wealth situations of the desired middle class. It means accepting that our growth rate existed on the back of a negative savings rate (i.e. houses taking on debt to buy things) and can not be sustained. It means accepting that this concept that every American must own their home has to be left behind (it causes too much of a family's wealth to be tied up into one investment; one that we now see is NOT bullet proof like it was told to us). It means accepting that the federal government needs to be running a not-for-profit health insurance plan because one medical crisis WILL bankrupt most families (my grandfather had a stint put in, total cost was 50,000 dollars but luckily he can pay that) and medical costs are going out of control. It means accepting that public universities have to be free because in this country to do anything you have to go to college and to do that means mortgaging the next 20 years of your life on the chance you may get a decent job. It also means accepting that income taxes should completely displace sales taxes because we need to control the income distribution in this country through effective progressive taxation (actual top federal rate doesnt even need to exceed 15% to completely evaporate the deficit if we toss out all of the exemptions, fyi).
So do it. And hope that people will understand that they are not suffering because of ineptitude but because it has to be that way for a while so that things can get better.
The reason I dont partake in market worship is because looking at the statistics, from the 1980s we see a huge shift backwards in conditions for most people despite a continued growth in GDP. That is because free market doesnt mean the market does what it wants; it means PEOPLE do what they want. The market is free to be manipulated by those who find market power either through imperfect information or by having such large amounts of money that they can actually affect markets (very large hedge funds, companies, foreign governments, etc). Perfect markets are a joke which is why it is so distressing that so many economists seem to believe they exist. They, of all people, should know better. I really, really want to hear the explanation for why our current level of income inequality, greater incidences of poverty amongst minorities, a gutted middle class and huge personal debt, direct results of the "getting out of the way of the market" policy adopted since the Reagan administration, are a good thing.
As for the whole debt discussion, I was blindsided by it. So were a lot of the more liberal economists. Next it's going to be inflation or something ridiculous like that. These are "issues" because the Republicans are making them issues and they do such a good job at presenting a united front that it pushes the weak, dispersed Democratic party into a corner. Or crowding out. How can there be crowding out when companies are just sitting on massive stockpiles of cash instead of doing things?
This is a crisis of aggregate demand. People aren't buying stuff. So other people aren't making stuff. They aren't hiring people to make that stuff who would then buy other stuff. But that hasn't been the discussion in like a year and a half.
Cutting spending during a recession without being honest with people that things will get worse before they get better is dishonest.
I think the reason debt has taken over as such a big issue is because the Republicans have done an EXCEPTIONAL job at suggesting that our current economic situation is actually very simple to fix; we just need to deal with that pesky debt and everything will go back to the way it was!
Republicans policies appeal to two types of people: rich white men who are voting in their own interest, and people who like simple answers. Fix the debt. Repeal Obamacare. Gold standard. If only we would implement these simple changes, everything would be great again!
Where is the Republican nominee whose economic policies are more than bumper sticker sayings? Sadly, it seems to be Newt Gingrich who is displaying the most thought on most issues although none of them other than Paul have any specifics (his are unworkable + he cannot win). Some of his thoughts are a little bit out there (although a Moon colony sounds sweet). Newt is the one saying that old people are not likely to self deport, secretly treats gay people like human beings and thinks that history has more value than exploitation of votes.
You make some very good points. However, I would contest a few of them. First, I wouldn't unequivocally say that "people aren't buying stuff"; some indicators point to this not being the case, most glaringly is consumer credit. Obviously in recessions, people curb their spending. But it seems now that consumer confidence and what people are actually doing might be divergent.
As for Republicans using the debt problem as an easy talking point, you are absolutely correct. The problem is, none of them are actually mobilizing to do anything with it, because they know it's going to be painful. This is my problem with the candidates (and the majority of Republicans in general). You have them yelling for "reducing the debt" yet at the same time calling for moon colonies and in some cases, more bureaucracy. I feel like at least Ron Paul makes it known that we are going to get hurt sooner or later, and that we should rather take the hit now.
In light of this, I don't think Newt makes many, if any at all, realistic non-bumper sticker sayings with regards to the economy. It is nice that he takes down the xenophobia a notch with deportation issues, but at the end of the day, I don't think he has a good plan when it comes to the economy. In fact, you mentioned the policies started during the Reagan administration as being ineffectual--Newt is all for that style of supply-side economics. Maybe I'm misconstruing your points (sorry if I did), but I just don't see the merit of Gingrich over anyone else when it comes to the economy.
Newt Gingrich is such a waste of time. I can't believe he's actually taken seriously. If only Ron Paul had more feasible domestic/econ policy i'd be down. His foreign policy (in general) is so right.
EPT
