On September 20 2011 04:11 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Romney seems to be getting more dangerous by the second in terms of winning/taking the lead in the nominations. His main problems seem to be Independents, who won't like his constant far right rhetoric which he hopes secures votes, and the tea party.
Imagine he wins the nomination then goes back to being a moderate, holy shit.
Are you talking about Romney or Perry? I'm waiting for the next round of polls to come out, but so far, I'm not sure that Romney is closing the gap with Perry. I get the sense that the upcoming debate this Thursday will help clarify things.
As for rhetoric, Romney's rhetoric has been very controlled and presidential. He hasn't said anything that would turn off independents or suggest to them that he's a right-wing nut. Perry, at times, has flirted with being too extreme.
On September 20 2011 04:11 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Romney seems to be getting more dangerous by the second in terms of winning/taking the lead in the nominations. His main problems seem to be Independents, who won't like his constant far right rhetoric which he hopes secures votes, and the tea party.
Imagine he wins the nomination then goes back to being a moderate, holy shit.
Are you talking about Romney or Perry? I'm waiting for the next round of polls to come out, but so far, I'm not sure that Romney is closing the gap with Perry. I get the sense that the upcoming debate this Thursday will help clarify things.
As for rhetoric, Romney's rhetoric has been very controlled and presidential. He hasn't said anything that would turn off independents or suggest to them that he's a right-wing nut. Perry, at times, has flirted with being too extreme.
On September 20 2011 04:11 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Romney seems to be getting more dangerous by the second in terms of winning/taking the lead in the nominations. His main problems seem to be Independents, who won't like his constant far right rhetoric which he hopes secures votes, and the tea party.
Imagine he wins the nomination then goes back to being a moderate, holy shit.
Are you talking about Romney or Perry? I'm waiting for the next round of polls to come out, but so far, I'm not sure that Romney is closing the gap with Perry. I get the sense that the upcoming debate this Thursday will help clarify things.
As for rhetoric, Romney's rhetoric has been very controlled and presidential. He hasn't said anything that would turn off independents or suggest to them that he's a right-wing nut. Perry, at times, has flirted with being too extreme.
On September 20 2011 04:11 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Romney seems to be getting more dangerous by the second in terms of winning/taking the lead in the nominations. His main problems seem to be Independents, who won't like his constant far right rhetoric which he hopes secures votes, and the tea party.
Imagine he wins the nomination then goes back to being a moderate, holy shit.
Are you talking about Romney or Perry? I'm waiting for the next round of polls to come out, but so far, I'm not sure that Romney is closing the gap with Perry. I get the sense that the upcoming debate this Thursday will help clarify things.
As for rhetoric, Romney's rhetoric has been very controlled and presidential. He hasn't said anything that would turn off independents or suggest to them that he's a right-wing nut. Perry, at times, has flirted with being too extreme.
On September 20 2011 04:11 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Romney seems to be getting more dangerous by the second in terms of winning/taking the lead in the nominations. His main problems seem to be Independents, who won't like his constant far right rhetoric which he hopes secures votes, and the tea party.
Imagine he wins the nomination then goes back to being a moderate, holy shit.
Are you talking about Romney or Perry? I'm waiting for the next round of polls to come out, but so far, I'm not sure that Romney is closing the gap with Perry. I get the sense that the upcoming debate this Thursday will help clarify things.
As for rhetoric, Romney's rhetoric has been very controlled and presidential. He hasn't said anything that would turn off independents or suggest to them that he's a right-wing nut. Perry, at times, has flirted with being too extreme.
Straw polls don't really mean much other than that the winners' organizations did a great job of getting supporters to show up.
You mean the same thing primaries/elections are about?
It's a very different dynamic. Candidates win straw polls purely upon the ability of their organizations to bring (ie bus) supporters to the polling place. As a result, what happened at the California straw poll is that some stupidly high percentage of Ron Paul's relatively low number of supporters showed up whereas very low percentages of Perry's and Romney's high number of supporters showed up.
Look at the Iowa straw poll. It didn't end up meaning dick for Bachmann. She's basically irrelevant now. Ron Paul has had good showings at both polls, but he has never been relevant on the national stage.
On September 20 2011 04:11 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Romney seems to be getting more dangerous by the second in terms of winning/taking the lead in the nominations. His main problems seem to be Independents, who won't like his constant far right rhetoric which he hopes secures votes, and the tea party.
Imagine he wins the nomination then goes back to being a moderate, holy shit.
Are you talking about Romney or Perry? I'm waiting for the next round of polls to come out, but so far, I'm not sure that Romney is closing the gap with Perry. I get the sense that the upcoming debate this Thursday will help clarify things.
As for rhetoric, Romney's rhetoric has been very controlled and presidential. He hasn't said anything that would turn off independents or suggest to them that he's a right-wing nut. Perry, at times, has flirted with being too extreme.
On September 20 2011 04:11 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Romney seems to be getting more dangerous by the second in terms of winning/taking the lead in the nominations. His main problems seem to be Independents, who won't like his constant far right rhetoric which he hopes secures votes, and the tea party.
Imagine he wins the nomination then goes back to being a moderate, holy shit.
Are you talking about Romney or Perry? I'm waiting for the next round of polls to come out, but so far, I'm not sure that Romney is closing the gap with Perry. I get the sense that the upcoming debate this Thursday will help clarify things.
As for rhetoric, Romney's rhetoric has been very controlled and presidential. He hasn't said anything that would turn off independents or suggest to them that he's a right-wing nut. Perry, at times, has flirted with being too extreme.
Straw polls don't really mean much other than that the winners' organizations did a great job of getting supporters to show up.
You mean the same thing primaries/elections are about?
It's a very different dynamic. Candidates win straw polls purely upon the ability of their organizations to bring (ie bus) supporters to the polling place. As a result, what happened at the California straw poll is that some stupidly high percentage of Ron Paul's relatively low number of supporters showed up whereas very low percentages of Perry's and Romney's high number of supporters showed up.
Look at the Iowa straw poll. It didn't end up meaning dick for Bachmann. She's basically irrelevant now. Ron Paul has had good showings at both polls, but he has never been relevant on the national stage.
Oh, I know straw polls are a bad indicator of actual candidate placement, but it allows us to see where the energy in campaigns lie. Ron Paul isn't relevant, and he probably knows this. However, if the energy and enthusiasm of his supporters can sway the party, he sees that as a win. Imagine if Perry was able to harness that excitement along with his poll numbers. He would grab the nomination for sure (and God help us).
On September 19 2011 13:34 AcuWill wrote: Also, funny how the largest rate of growth in US history occurred in a DEFLATIONARY period in the late 1800s. The concept that growth is spurred by a "healthy dose of small inflation" is completely ludicrous. Growth is spurred by SAVINGS. Savings leads to credit. Credit leads to lending with leads to growth. )
The best quarter-century of growth in the US was 1949-73, not the late 1800s. Now I'm sure by some other metric (perhaps best year or best decade?) you can make the argument for some time in the 1800s. But for shorter timeframes, I'm more likely to view something like the best single year on record as a statistical outlier rather than concrete evidence that some handpicked factor is a key to economic growth.
Businesses are all saving their profits now; that's the problem. Economic growth is driven by consumption. Some savings is good, but only up to a point. As an obvious example, how strong would the economy be if everybody simply put 100% of their income into a safe in their home?
Even your own theory contradicts the argument you're trying to make, since you say that borrowing (the opposite of saving) leads to growth.
Academic economics isn't a conspiracy any more that academic biology or academic psychology. Theories are based on some standard of evidence and the peer review system, which while not perfect is certainly better than most/all competing standards. Besides that, if you look you'll find a host of free market support within the field; you just won't find unflinching support for a political party or ideology, which sadly is what I think a lot of people dabble in political economics for.
What you're saying doesn't make sense. For consumption to drive growth, people must earn more, or borrow. Peoples wages have been decreasing. That means people are borrowing to spend, something you just said is driving growth, but the next paragraph you say contradicts his argument that borrowing leads to growth (maybe you meant "real" growth or healthy economic growth). If there is any positive GDP numbers (outside increases from the government or the trade deficit) it must be due to borrowing.
If consumption is healthy economic behavior outside certain points is a different matter (also I'm only refering to you and haven't read the person you are quoting).
EDIT: Reading his post, anyone who saves can be a creditor, which means there will be more borrowing of money, because there will be more to be lent. So he's still right.
On September 20 2011 05:36 SnK-Arcbound wrote: What you're saying doesn't make sense. For consumption to drive growth, people must earn more, or borrow. Peoples wages have been decreasing. That means people are borrowing to spend, something you just said is driving growth, but the next paragraph you say contradicts his argument that borrowing leads to growth (maybe you meant "real" growth or healthy economic growth). If there is any positive GDP numbers (outside increases from the government or the trade deficit) it must be due to borrowing.
Over what period has real income per capita been decreasing and real GDP/cap been increasing?
My argument doesn't contradict borrowing leading to growth. My argument contradicts savings leading to growth. An individual's net savings is (saving - borrowing). Therefore aggregate borrowing = - aggregate savings. Increasing one implies decreasing the other.
If consumption is healthy economic behavior outside certain points is a different matter (also I'm only refering to you and haven't read the person you are quoting).
EDIT: Reading his post, anyone who saves can be a creditor, which means there will be more borrowing of money, because there will be more to be lent. So he's still right.
I took his statement that (paraphrased) "savings leads to growth" as meaning aggregate savings. Increasing aggregate savings implies decreasing aggregate borrowing,
You're correct that an individual choosing to save can allow another individual to borrow. This is one of those seeming paradoxes where one person doing the action (saving) can boost consumption (assuming banks are lending at the maximum allowed rate given their reserve requirements), but if everyone increases their savings then they must be decreasing their consumption, since individuals face the constraint (generalized): Income = Taxes + Consumption + Net Savings/Investment (ie savings/investment minus borrowing)
You say this as if our current health care system was actually enjoying a free market.
How does that in any way respond to what I said?
Health care costs are not increased by Medicare and Medicaid. Health care costs are not increased by military health insurance either. They actually reduce health care costs because uninsured people still get treated, just really inefficiently and wastefully.
Those programs increase the tax burden, obviously, but that is simply a matter of where the money comes from. The total money spent is significantly lower thanks to these programs.
Socialized health care in most countries does not mean government run hospitals. Hospitals can be private enterprises. It's primary health insurance that's taken out of private hands (although private health insurance does exist for non-vital expenses like private rooms with TVs and the like).
The current health care system is not making use of market forces, because market forces necessarily drive up profit. If healthcare was a two-party interaction between doctors and patients, then market forces would work to provide the best healthcare for the most people at the most competitive price.
But with private health insurance, market forces work to provide the bare minimum to the least people, paying out as little as possible while collecting premiums from as many people as possible. Healthcare is not a business of treating people, healthcare is a business of not treating people if at all possible.
Meanwhile, actual healthcare providers are forced to charge more and more because they treat more and more insolvent people who never pay bills. It is quite literally the most inefficient system in the world, and that is because of the idea that private sector solutions are always better.
Euhm. Do you have facts to back up your substantive claims?
Btw: you do realize that the thing you touch upon in your final paragraph, is actually mandated by the federal government, right?
I don't want to sound overly agressive in my post, but you are narrowing the complex problems your country is having a little bit too much. Also; I don't think you really appreciate the dynamic incentive structure that a more free market approach would have compared to the government created HMO system that you guys have had for the last decades.
In short: your system is fucked up, because it, just as the European systems, has a lot of governmentintervention. And not the good kind.
On September 19 2011 15:44 aksfjh wrote: Well, it seems economic theory in the GOP is of the same basis as their science approach. A bunch of "bananas fit in our hands!" logic, without a lot of empirical evidence to back it up. You've already attached your arguments to personal experience and used it as an overriding factor, which detaches it from any rational conversation.
There's some info about food inflation from May, although many predict that prices will fall now that they fear another dip into a recession.
Are you serious? I attached my person experience because you're trolling.
Look at the numbers.
there's roughly 12 to 25 % increases in prices of all commodities...
soy beans went from 380 to 500... and you're saying inflation is estimated to be 3-4 %?
are you saying the soy beans got 25% better?
or there's somehow way less of them?
Of course the USDA is gonna say price increases will be calculated to a 3-4 % increase... they're part of the government, and they calculate that using the same broken logic that they use to calculate the CPI.
Look at the market prices and stop spouting bullshit.
Past year:
Commodity Agricultural Raw Materials Index is up 14ish percent
Commodity Beverage Price Index is up 11ish percent
Commodity Price Index is up 28 percent
Commodity Fuel (energy) Index is up 34 percent
Commodity Food and Beverage Price Index is up 19.5 percent
Commodity Food Price Index is up 20 percent
Commodity Industrial Inputs Price Index is up 19 percent
Commodity Metals Price Index is up 17.5 percent
Commodity Non-Fuel Price Index is up 19.25 percent
Crude Oil (petroleum), Price index is up 33 percent
Barley is up 28 percent
The fucking corn that we produce here in America is up... 77 percent....
please tell me how the inflation is only 4%... please
You're citing commodity prices... When people buy food at the grocery store or a restaurant, a lot of the cost they're paying for is employee pay, property rental, electricity and refrigeration, etc. Those things have not been going up. (In fact, property rental went down a lot...) So unless you buy all your goods from factories and have truckloads of them delivered to your house... the price you pay hasn't actually gone up that much.
so the providers of these goods have been skimping on quality amongst other things in order to try to keep the prices down...
doesn't mean that the inflation is lower because of that, because they are cutting expenses across the board, some of which is detrimental to the quality of their products. and of course the employee's aren't getting raises.
energy has been going up as well, so electricity and refrigeration costs more.
as for rent... Real Estate isn't selling, so owners can't just successfully sell of their property. They need to make sure that people continue to rent for them to be able to maintain their propert and income, so this helps drive the prices of rent down.
one reason how commodities and real estate are different is that once you own real estate you own it, but if you're a restaurant that uses a lot of beans for instance, and the prices of beans went up like crazy you first of all decrease the portions of beans you provide in your meals, you can charge more for your meals, and you can buy less beans.
You can't all of a sudden decide to own less real estate unless you find someone to buy it from you, and no one is buying.
On September 20 2011 05:36 SnK-Arcbound wrote: What you're saying doesn't make sense. For consumption to drive growth, people must earn more, or borrow. Peoples wages have been decreasing. That means people are borrowing to spend, something you just said is driving growth, but the next paragraph you say contradicts his argument that borrowing leads to growth (maybe you meant "real" growth or healthy economic growth). If there is any positive GDP numbers (outside increases from the government or the trade deficit) it must be due to borrowing.
Over what period has real income per capita been decreasing and real GDP/cap been increasing?
My argument doesn't contradict borrowing leading to growth. My argument contradicts savings leading to growth. An individual's net savings is (saving - borrowing). Therefore aggregate borrowing = - aggregate savings. Increasing one implies decreasing the other.
Savings leads to repaying of debts. When people save, businesses know that people will have money to spend in the future, so they invest in future projects (some people that have saved invest in businesses, which start products for the future, other people who are saving will be able to spend their money on these new products if they so desire.)
It's part of the cycle. When there is too much borrowing, less people have money, so money needs to become more expensive (meaning interest rates should go up,) so then borrowing becomes more expensive, so less people borrow and more people save. If there is too many people saving then interest rates go down to facilitate more spending...
There's a negative feedback loop which will keep the economy at a relative balance with some fluctuations based on the average availability of quality investments (sometimes even when the interest rates are high it can make sense to invest in an exceptional business plan, but this is generally an exception.)
What is happening now is that borrowing costs very little, and everyone's spending, but the government is preventing the economy from fixing itself by highering the interest rates. Instead we have to have the FED print the money and loan it at low rates, which of course brings the rates down across the board but also destroys the economy as it discourages people from saving when they should be (because saving amongst people leads to investments having a higher chance of success, because there will be more people with the money to possibly become customers.) Right now people have little savings but are still encouraged by the rates to invest, and businesses are encouraged to expand, but this only causes an accumulation of debt.
If consumption is healthy economic behavior outside certain points is a different matter (also I'm only refering to you and haven't read the person you are quoting).
EDIT: Reading his post, anyone who saves can be a creditor, which means there will be more borrowing of money, because there will be more to be lent. So he's still right.
I took his statement that (paraphrased) "savings leads to growth" as meaning aggregate savings. Increasing aggregate savings implies decreasing aggregate borrowing,
You're correct that an individual choosing to save can allow another individual to borrow. This is one of those seeming paradoxes where one person doing the action (saving) can boost consumption (assuming banks are lending at the maximum allowed rate given their reserve requirements), but if everyone increases their savings then they must be decreasing their consumption, since individuals face the constraint (generalized): Income = Taxes + Consumption + Net Savings/Investment (ie savings/investment minus borrowing)
Of course they must decrease their consumption. High rate of consumption means low savings. Low savings means little people have money, and many people are willing to borrow, but if many people are willing to borrow, it means those that can lend should be able to raise up the price of borrowing (by hiring interest rates in order to hedge the risks of bankruptcies and etc.) But if the rates stay low we're creating debt and inflation through the printing of money, and then if the rates go up tons of banks will fail because their low rates don't do enough to hedge the risk of bankruptcies...
But in the end, the rates must be allowed to go up, because the longer they stay lower the worse it's gonna get the when they go up. But if they never go up it's also gonna get progressively worse. There's no good choice to make, but the best choice left is to let the rates go up, let the banks fail, and then let the economy restructure.
On September 21 2011 08:00 LeibSaiLeib wrote: i am actually reading that its wasteful to treat poor people who cant afford to pay for it..
well sounds republican allraight
If I get who you're getting this from right, that person probably means that the poor people are using emergency rooms as primary care, and that, as opposed to a regular consultation, is an inefficient use of resources.
DES MOINES, Iowa -- A week after the Agriculture Department announced wider testing for potentially deadly E. coli in meat, Republican presidential candidate Michele Bachmann said Tuesday that regulations were overburdening food producers.
Bachmann visited a 140-year-old, family-run meatpacking plant in Des Moines and took a turn at cutting ribeye steaks in a chilly meat locker as she pushed back against regulations for food makers and other businesses. She did not call for the repeal of any specific rules.
"We want to have safety," she said. "But we also want to have common sense."
Bachmann says, as do most of those in the GOP field, that a lightened regulatory load would allow employers to spend money on expansion rather than federal compliance. But the Minnesota congresswoman is the first to focus the argument on the food-processing industry.
If I lived in America I'd simply campaign for Bachmann to let Obama win the presidency.
I believe that most Europeans are pro Obama because his ideals are similair to ours and even when he can't get something done it's usually the Tea Party blocking his motions unless obama makes huge consessions, essentialy gutting whatever he makes.
EPT
OLITICS![[image loading]](http://i.huffpost.com/gen/356328/MICHELE-BACHMANN-MEAT.jpg)
