|
|
On April 20 2012 01:11 Klondikebar wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2012 01:08 xDaunt wrote:On April 20 2012 01:03 DeekZ wrote:On April 20 2012 01:01 Joedaddy wrote:* Many of the MSM TeamLiquid polls in the US are hopelessly biased in favour of the Democrats and Obama. Fixed. I'm not happy about Romney at all, but I'd vote for almost anyone before I vote for Obama. Why? Do people really not understand how bad and ineffective Obama has been as a president? His signature accomplishments are passing a bad (and likely unconstitutional) healthcare bill and a $1 trillion stimulus package that has been largely ineffective --- all in an atmosphere where the national debt has gone up by $5 trillion, the economy has remained in the toilet, and Washington has turned hyper-partisan (blame republicans if you want, but Obama hasn't crossed the aisle either). There really is hardly anything to like about Obama. Hell, the best that his supporters can do is make excuses for him that inevitably involve blaming congressional republicans and/or Bush. It's widely acknowledged by Economists that the stimulus package did actually improve things. The rate of return on the stimulus is still up in the air but the fact that it made things better is demonstrable.
This is a moot point though. If I get a credit card and buy new furniture, is my situation better? At the moment, of course it is, I have more stuff, I'm more comfortable. When the bill comes in the mail, will I be worse off? At the moment, of course, I have less money.
The real question is, "On the whole over time are we experiencing a net benefit or a net loss?" And the answer to that question is predicated on something few people truly grasp: Opportunity cost.
|
On April 20 2012 01:18 ownyah wrote:Honestly I wouldn't vote for either one. Obama turned out to be more of a speaker than a maker. Mitt Romney is just down right insane. He doesn't really care for his country, he is only doing it because of the power. Show nested quote +On April 20 2012 01:12 SpiffD wrote:On April 20 2012 01:08 xDaunt wrote:On April 20 2012 01:03 DeekZ wrote:On April 20 2012 01:01 Joedaddy wrote:* Many of the MSM TeamLiquid polls in the US are hopelessly biased in favour of the Democrats and Obama. Fixed. I'm not happy about Romney at all, but I'd vote for almost anyone before I vote for Obama. Why? Do people really not understand how bad and ineffective Obama has been as a president? His signature accomplishments are passing a bad (and likely unconstitutional) healthcare bill and a $1 trillion stimulus package that has been largely ineffective --- all in an atmosphere where the national debt has gone up by $5 trillion, the economy has remained in the toilet, and Washington has turned hyper-partisan (blame republicans if you want, but Obama hasn't crossed the aisle either). There really is hardly anything to like about Obama. Hell, the best that his supporters can do is make excuses for him that inevitably involve blaming congressional republicans and/or Bush. Excuses, lol? So Bush had nothing to do with the state of the current US economy? It's pretty expensive to go to war y'know. Which Obama could had stopped, insted he is now waging more wars than Bush did.
What are you talking about?
Obama ended the Iraq war, and is going to end the Afghanistan war.
And Libya doesn't count, a few NATO planes bombed the place, that is all.
|
On April 20 2012 01:17 U_G_L_Y wrote:
PS, there was no buyout more leveraged with more layoffs than Chrysler or GM. It had to happen so that that EVERYONE didn't lose their job, but to turn around and feign outrage at what Bain Capital does is quite amusing.
I read the national affairs article you recommended. Pretty interesting. However, I must say that this was precisely what Paulson did during the Wall Street bailout: dictating private enterprises' actions. They purposely favored Goldman Sachs and other "preferred" IBanks over other ones who failed. "And this approach — defined by broad government power unchecked by legal constraints and possessing sweeping authority to pick winners and losers — has guided the administration's policies well beyond the auto bailout. The aim of this approach is to rejuvenate the New Deal vision of the regulatory state, in which regulators are seen as disinterested experts with the factual knowledge, practical wisdom, and unwavering integrity to manage the economy. They alone are presumed to be capable of steering the nation toward prosperity." Seen it before. Nothing new. Once government TARP is doled out, government has a say in decision making.
|
Obama's biggest mistakes during his presidency has been caving in time after time to GOP demands on hopes that they will support his other ideas which is never going to happen.
|
On April 20 2012 01:02 xXFireandIceXx wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2012 01:01 Joedaddy wrote:* Many of the MSM TeamLiquid polls in the US are hopelessly biased in favour of the Democrats and Obama. Fixed. I'm not happy about Romney at all, but I'd vote for almost anyone before I vote for Obama. I don't know why, but most internationals like Obama much more than Americans.
Many people prefer him due to foreign policy, but as absurd as it may sound, at this point I feel that domestic policy in the US is actually much more important for the rest of the world and will affect us a lot more than the actual foreign policy.
At this point I'm past caring about how much of his promises Obama actually fulfills, or how much his actions are contradictory to his promises, mostly due to having no faith in the US political system as a whole and the ability of people in position of political power to make their own decisions and act on their own. However it is critically important for US to have a president that will at least SPEAK in favor of humanistic and social values, many of which I see as universal civilization values that have no reasonable alternative. A President still commands a lot of media attention and is able to get that message across to a lot of people and be heard.
Now substitute Obama with a Generic Republican Candidate, and that message is no longer there, in fact it gets replaced by a very dangerous message. Literally my only expectation of Obama at this point is to keep talking.
|
On April 20 2012 01:20 castled wrote:
Sad that there's going to be such a biased OP for this topic.
Maybe ask the correct question next time. The topic is about X or Y, who would you vote for. That is a wish for biased opinions and comments. You either say X or Y along with some overly exaggerated statements to make it clear.
However asking, in which terms do you find X or Y better etc.. would creat a better topic and discussion.
|
On April 20 2012 01:19 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2012 01:11 Klondikebar wrote:On April 20 2012 01:08 xDaunt wrote:On April 20 2012 01:03 DeekZ wrote:On April 20 2012 01:01 Joedaddy wrote:* Many of the MSM TeamLiquid polls in the US are hopelessly biased in favour of the Democrats and Obama. Fixed. I'm not happy about Romney at all, but I'd vote for almost anyone before I vote for Obama. Why? Do people really not understand how bad and ineffective Obama has been as a president? His signature accomplishments are passing a bad (and likely unconstitutional) healthcare bill and a $1 trillion stimulus package that has been largely ineffective --- all in an atmosphere where the national debt has gone up by $5 trillion, the economy has remained in the toilet, and Washington has turned hyper-partisan (blame republicans if you want, but Obama hasn't crossed the aisle either). There really is hardly anything to like about Obama. Hell, the best that his supporters can do is make excuses for him that inevitably involve blaming congressional republicans and/or Bush. It's widely acknowledged by Economists that the stimulus package did actually improve things. The rate of return on the stimulus is still up in the air but the fact that it made things better is demonstrable. Also, Obama's effect on the debt has been completely negligible compared to what Bush did. I do agree that the healthcare bill is garbage. Spending billions/trillions of dollars to only get an additional 6% of America health insurance?! That's really the best you can do?! It also screws over doctors and hospitals in a big way. There's a reason they're all fleeing the medicare system. Obamacare will save $210 billion over 2012-2021. Source: https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftpdocs/121xx/doc12119/03-30-healthcarelegislation.pdf (Table 1)
obamacare tax hike is just starting to kick in. completely negilible? Obama has done massive, HUMONGOUS deficit spending. True, bush too, buut both are fiscally complete DISASTERS as president,s and will take our country down to a depression or hyperinflation once the current bond bubble bursts
|
I find a lot of Americans laughably uninformed about European politics. Hey, we don't live in a socialist hellhole with no free speech here. (not to say it's perfect)
1. there is a higher variety of opinions available, since we have relevant political parties for pretty much all political ideologies.
2. a higher percentage of sane opinions, since denying science, mocking gay people etc. isn't really acceptable here. It's actually shocking how little scientific consensus means in the US.
3. public debate has more to do with actual policy than in the US, where politicians just debate made-up controversies with no connection to reality.
4. less corruption: we actually have a lot of politicians that would probably never get close to congress in the United States and that I would honestly call intelligent well-spoken people with morally sound principles that they live by. Even in positions of power.
I see a lot of misinformation in this thread too, it's unfortunate that people spend so much time quibbling about the national debt when they couldn't themselves really explain why it's the most important issue of their time. I can't really respect people who consider that the most important rationale behind making their decision for President, when, say, the near-complete control of multinational corporations over US politics scarcely deserves a mention. If you look at opinion polls about what sort of policy the public wants, it has no connection to what politicians consider acceptable, which means the US is not a functional democracy.
|
On April 20 2012 01:19 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2012 01:11 Klondikebar wrote:On April 20 2012 01:08 xDaunt wrote:On April 20 2012 01:03 DeekZ wrote:On April 20 2012 01:01 Joedaddy wrote:* Many of the MSM TeamLiquid polls in the US are hopelessly biased in favour of the Democrats and Obama. Fixed. I'm not happy about Romney at all, but I'd vote for almost anyone before I vote for Obama. Why? Do people really not understand how bad and ineffective Obama has been as a president? His signature accomplishments are passing a bad (and likely unconstitutional) healthcare bill and a $1 trillion stimulus package that has been largely ineffective --- all in an atmosphere where the national debt has gone up by $5 trillion, the economy has remained in the toilet, and Washington has turned hyper-partisan (blame republicans if you want, but Obama hasn't crossed the aisle either). There really is hardly anything to like about Obama. Hell, the best that his supporters can do is make excuses for him that inevitably involve blaming congressional republicans and/or Bush. It's widely acknowledged by Economists that the stimulus package did actually improve things. The rate of return on the stimulus is still up in the air but the fact that it made things better is demonstrable. Also, Obama's effect on the debt has been completely negligible compared to what Bush did. I do agree that the healthcare bill is garbage. Spending billions/trillions of dollars to only get an additional 6% of America health insurance?! That's really the best you can do?! It also screws over doctors and hospitals in a big way. There's a reason they're all fleeing the medicare system. Obamacare will save $210 billion over 2012-2021. Source: https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftpdocs/121xx/doc12119/03-30-healthcarelegislation.pdf (Table 1)
Their budget estimates have come under fire for excluding too much, outright double counting/lying, and just generally making bad predictions. They're also "saving more" because they're shoving more and more people out of the bill (hence the only %6). They're also doing heinous things on the provider side of healthcare. Forget not paying the doctors and hospitals enough to even cover costs, they're slashing education funding which is going to exacerbate the shortage of physicians we already have.
And I don't believe for one second that our government is actually going to stick to it's budget. It tends to shoot it's programs into the red really fast.
|
If you look at the 2008 election... and ask... how close was McCain?
There were 131,000,000 popular votes cast, and Obama took 10,000,000 more popular votes.
BUT
McCain was 1.1 million additional votes away from being president. Or if 550,000 switched their vote from Obama to McCain.
If you look at the 7 closest states, that Obama barely won...that McCain would have need to reach 270 electoral votes... those are the numbers.
|
On April 20 2012 01:23 liberal wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2012 01:11 Klondikebar wrote:On April 20 2012 01:08 xDaunt wrote:On April 20 2012 01:03 DeekZ wrote:On April 20 2012 01:01 Joedaddy wrote:* Many of the MSM TeamLiquid polls in the US are hopelessly biased in favour of the Democrats and Obama. Fixed. I'm not happy about Romney at all, but I'd vote for almost anyone before I vote for Obama. Why? Do people really not understand how bad and ineffective Obama has been as a president? His signature accomplishments are passing a bad (and likely unconstitutional) healthcare bill and a $1 trillion stimulus package that has been largely ineffective --- all in an atmosphere where the national debt has gone up by $5 trillion, the economy has remained in the toilet, and Washington has turned hyper-partisan (blame republicans if you want, but Obama hasn't crossed the aisle either). There really is hardly anything to like about Obama. Hell, the best that his supporters can do is make excuses for him that inevitably involve blaming congressional republicans and/or Bush. It's widely acknowledged by Economists that the stimulus package did actually improve things. The rate of return on the stimulus is still up in the air but the fact that it made things better is demonstrable. This is a moot point though. If I get a credit card and buy new furniture, is my situation better? Of course it is, I have more stuff, I'm more comfortable. When the bill comes in the mail, will I be worse off? Of course, I have less money. The real question is, "On the whole over time are we experiencing a net benefit or a net loss?" And the answer to that question is predicated on something few people truly grasp: Opportunity cost.
The notion of opportunity cost is a microeconomics concept not a macroeconomic concept.
If your point is comparing what would happen without the stimulus to what happened with the stimulus, than things are better because stimulus in recessions have fiscal multipliers.
See for example: http://elsa.berkeley.edu/~cromer/Written Version of Effects of Fiscal Policy.pdf
Furthermore, we have another baseline for fiscal austerity: Europe and the 20% unemployment rate in Spain and Greece.
|
On April 20 2012 01:23 liberal wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2012 01:11 Klondikebar wrote:On April 20 2012 01:08 xDaunt wrote:On April 20 2012 01:03 DeekZ wrote:On April 20 2012 01:01 Joedaddy wrote:* Many of the MSM TeamLiquid polls in the US are hopelessly biased in favour of the Democrats and Obama. Fixed. I'm not happy about Romney at all, but I'd vote for almost anyone before I vote for Obama. Why? Do people really not understand how bad and ineffective Obama has been as a president? His signature accomplishments are passing a bad (and likely unconstitutional) healthcare bill and a $1 trillion stimulus package that has been largely ineffective --- all in an atmosphere where the national debt has gone up by $5 trillion, the economy has remained in the toilet, and Washington has turned hyper-partisan (blame republicans if you want, but Obama hasn't crossed the aisle either). There really is hardly anything to like about Obama. Hell, the best that his supporters can do is make excuses for him that inevitably involve blaming congressional republicans and/or Bush. It's widely acknowledged by Economists that the stimulus package did actually improve things. The rate of return on the stimulus is still up in the air but the fact that it made things better is demonstrable. This is a moot point though. If I get a credit card and buy new furniture, is my situation better? At the moment, of course it is, I have more stuff, I'm more comfortable. When the bill comes in the mail, will I be worse off? At the moment, of course, I have less money. The real question is, "On the whole over time are we experiencing a net benefit or a net loss?" And the answer to that question is predicated on something few people truly grasp: Opportunity cost.
True Keynsian theory (upon which a stimulus is based) has been accepted as true for quite some time. It didn't come as a surprise to anyone that the stimulus would help. And the stimulus is not comparable to you buying things with a credit card. There's a MASSIVE difference between government debt and household debt.
|
On April 20 2012 01:07 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2012 00:57 scaban84 wrote:On April 20 2012 00:45 KwarK wrote:On April 20 2012 00:24 scaban84 wrote:
Yes in Europe "Liberal" and "Conservative" having different meanings than in the US.
When I lived in Europe there was much less diversity of thought, everyone agreed on role of government. They don't seem to understand the US's struggle for independence and our drive to be different than Europe, Europeans disagree on trivial matters whereas we still debate the "big" questions. Conservative to us is having economic liberty and small government, because it has been the norm for such a long time (not so much anymore). In Europe that is a radically new or "liberal" idea. Everything about this post is so incredibly wrong that it's all hilarious. Do you genuinely think the debate you're having over the role of government is radical and new? I'll tell you why the rest of Europe doesn't argue so much about that stuff. It's because we did our arguing about it decades ago and arrived upon a consensus which we were all reasonably happy with. America isn't pushing new grounds and it hasn't been since the Revolutionary era. Since then it has been reactionary and primitive, a fledgling nation trying to define itself in a much older world. Europeans disagree on trivial matters?!?! Abortion is apparently a huge debate in America. Flag burning too. Gays in the military. These are not big or complicated questions, they're questions that the rest of the world doesn't begin to care about because they're so incredibly simple and childish. The foundation myth that Americans buy into where they're cutting new ground and pushing new frontiers for human freedom and expression is really quite laughable. The entire history of the 20th Century was the rest of the civilised world arguing over the role of government with relation to economic liberty from the great depression on to the postwar European social democratic consensus in Western Europe and the Soviet bloc in the East. Do you honestly believe that the petty debates between American ideologues have any relevance to the understanding of these questions for a European? You obviously have no experience with US history. Those arguments on the role of government that you so eloquent described as "so decades ago" in Europe were being solved centuries ago on American soil. That is why Europe so recently made a futile attempt at replicating our Federal government, constitution, and Central Banking system. Europeans are just figuring out race relations and immigration. And the only reason Europeans are settled on abortion and gays in the military is because there is not enough diversity to allow controversy. And it barely has a military to speak of. Er, the EU is not a futile attempt to become more like America. The debate about the role of Government in the economy is apparently unsolved in America and solved over here according to your first post. Saying America figured out race relations before we did is not even worth responding to. Barely having a military is just nonsense. It's classic American ignorance to take something such as the gays in the military argument and come up with hypothetical arguments about what'll happen to unit cohesion as if they're pushing new grounds on the issue when all they'd need to do is phone up some guy from the MoD in London and say "you guys have gays in your army, right? how's the unit cohesion?". You're not new, you're not pushing back frontiers, you're not trying new things, you're lagging a long way behind the rest of the world and the only reason you believe any of the debates you have are relevant to anything ever is because you're too caught up in your own "land of the free" mythology.
You have nothing of substance in this post. It's like you are trying to hurt the US's feelings by making fun of it. Explain to me how the European Union and European Central Bank is completely original.
Regarding race relations: have you seen the race riots in France? Have you seen Spanish and Italian people throwing bananas at black football players and calling them monkeys?
And Europe barely has a military.
And I never said that the US was fresh and new. The problem is that most Americans are resurrecting government and economic debates that were solved a long time ago.
Tell me about these brilliant new things that Europe is trying. Bailing out sovereign debt? The UK spending more than revenue?
|
On April 20 2012 01:25 Grumbels wrote:
I find a lot of Americans laughably uninformed about European politics. Hey, we don't live in a socialist hellhole with no free speech here. (not to say it's perfect)
1. there is a higher variety of opinions available, since we have relevant political parties for pretty much all political ideologies.
2. a higher percentage of sane opinions, since denying science, mocking gay people etc. isn't really acceptable here
3. public debate has more to do with actual policy than in the US, where politicians just debate made-up controversies with no connection to reality.
4. less corruption: we actually have a lot of politicians that would probably never get close to congress in the United States and that I would honestly call intelligent well-spoken people with morally sound principles that they live by. Even in positions of power.
that is not how the ladder of politics works. you gain positions and climb up the ladder by doing political services. and services mean all the bad stuff.
europe is just as corrupt as US, just they have better PR, in the form of the welfare state and whatnot, hence rank lower in the "perceived corruption" indices
|
I still think the electoral college is a totally outdated system and needs to be reviewed. Being able to lose while leading by several millions of votes is just wrong.
|
|
|
Lets just hope we can get debates back to the focus of what is important for the country and not all this war on women bullshit
|
On April 20 2012 01:24 storkfan wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2012 01:19 paralleluniverse wrote:On April 20 2012 01:11 Klondikebar wrote:On April 20 2012 01:08 xDaunt wrote:On April 20 2012 01:03 DeekZ wrote:On April 20 2012 01:01 Joedaddy wrote:* Many of the MSM TeamLiquid polls in the US are hopelessly biased in favour of the Democrats and Obama. Fixed. I'm not happy about Romney at all, but I'd vote for almost anyone before I vote for Obama. Why? Do people really not understand how bad and ineffective Obama has been as a president? His signature accomplishments are passing a bad (and likely unconstitutional) healthcare bill and a $1 trillion stimulus package that has been largely ineffective --- all in an atmosphere where the national debt has gone up by $5 trillion, the economy has remained in the toilet, and Washington has turned hyper-partisan (blame republicans if you want, but Obama hasn't crossed the aisle either). There really is hardly anything to like about Obama. Hell, the best that his supporters can do is make excuses for him that inevitably involve blaming congressional republicans and/or Bush. It's widely acknowledged by Economists that the stimulus package did actually improve things. The rate of return on the stimulus is still up in the air but the fact that it made things better is demonstrable. Also, Obama's effect on the debt has been completely negligible compared to what Bush did. I do agree that the healthcare bill is garbage. Spending billions/trillions of dollars to only get an additional 6% of America health insurance?! That's really the best you can do?! It also screws over doctors and hospitals in a big way. There's a reason they're all fleeing the medicare system. Obamacare will save $210 billion over 2012-2021. Source: https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftpdocs/121xx/doc12119/03-30-healthcarelegislation.pdf (Table 1) obamacare tax hike is just starting to kick in. completely negilible? Obama has done massive, HUMONGOUS deficit spending. True, bush too, buut both are fiscally complete DISASTERS as president,s and will take our country down to a depression or hyperinflation once the current bond bubble bursts
What bond bubble? Source?
Hyperinflation? Source? The Fed has tripled the monetary base, where's the inflation? People have been screaming that the sky is falling, that hyperinflation is just around the corner for years now. Where is it? How much longer do we have to wait, before this apocalyptic vision comes to pass? Any day now, right? How much longer do we have to wait for some economic evidence to support this absurd idea that the US is going to have hyperinflation. Core inflation is below the Fed's 2% target.
As for spending:
![[image loading]](http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2011/07/24/opinion/sunday/24editorial_graph1/24editorial_graph1-popup.gif)
![[image loading]](http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2011/07/24/opinion/sunday/24editorial_graph2/24editorial_graph2-popup.gif)
Here's some graphs about the deficit: https://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/24/opinion/sunday/24sun4.html?_r=1
From this we can see that the deficit tripled as a result of falling tax revenue in the GFC. And Bush increased the deficit 4 times more than Obama. Nearly all of the deficit is falling tax revenue, the 2 wars, and the Bush tax cuts. The Obama stimulus is completely insignificant in comparison.
Furthermore, a lack of spending now and a continually depressed economy as a result, will lead to less tax revenue then could otherwise be generated, making it even harder to pay back the debt. This is what's happening in Europe. Paying back debt is not hard because tax revenue naturally grows as a result of population growth, economic growth and inflation.
|
On April 20 2012 01:27 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2012 01:23 liberal wrote:On April 20 2012 01:11 Klondikebar wrote:On April 20 2012 01:08 xDaunt wrote:On April 20 2012 01:03 DeekZ wrote:On April 20 2012 01:01 Joedaddy wrote:* Many of the MSM TeamLiquid polls in the US are hopelessly biased in favour of the Democrats and Obama. Fixed. I'm not happy about Romney at all, but I'd vote for almost anyone before I vote for Obama. Why? Do people really not understand how bad and ineffective Obama has been as a president? His signature accomplishments are passing a bad (and likely unconstitutional) healthcare bill and a $1 trillion stimulus package that has been largely ineffective --- all in an atmosphere where the national debt has gone up by $5 trillion, the economy has remained in the toilet, and Washington has turned hyper-partisan (blame republicans if you want, but Obama hasn't crossed the aisle either). There really is hardly anything to like about Obama. Hell, the best that his supporters can do is make excuses for him that inevitably involve blaming congressional republicans and/or Bush. It's widely acknowledged by Economists that the stimulus package did actually improve things. The rate of return on the stimulus is still up in the air but the fact that it made things better is demonstrable. This is a moot point though. If I get a credit card and buy new furniture, is my situation better? Of course it is, I have more stuff, I'm more comfortable. When the bill comes in the mail, will I be worse off? Of course, I have less money. The real question is, "On the whole over time are we experiencing a net benefit or a net loss?" And the answer to that question is predicated on something few people truly grasp: Opportunity cost. The notion of opportunity cost is a microeconomics concept not a macroeconomic concept. If your point is comparing what would happen without the stimulus to what happened with the stimulus, than things are better because stimulus in recessions have fiscal multipliers. See for example: http://elsa.berkeley.edu/~cromer/Written Version of Effects of Fiscal Policy.pdfFurthermore, we have another baseline for fiscal austerity: Europe and the 20% unemployment rate in Spain and Greece. wrong. opportunity cost is just the same at the macroscopic level. and the opportunity cost is all the WASTE of government they have created with their BS spending schemes. All the scarce resources that have been wasted there. Government spending will ALWAYS, i repeat ALWAYS, by its definition, be wasteful. It is because it is not based on profit and loss, but taxation and spending.
|
On April 20 2012 01:27 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2012 01:23 liberal wrote:On April 20 2012 01:11 Klondikebar wrote:On April 20 2012 01:08 xDaunt wrote:On April 20 2012 01:03 DeekZ wrote:On April 20 2012 01:01 Joedaddy wrote:* Many of the MSM TeamLiquid polls in the US are hopelessly biased in favour of the Democrats and Obama. Fixed. I'm not happy about Romney at all, but I'd vote for almost anyone before I vote for Obama. Why? Do people really not understand how bad and ineffective Obama has been as a president? His signature accomplishments are passing a bad (and likely unconstitutional) healthcare bill and a $1 trillion stimulus package that has been largely ineffective --- all in an atmosphere where the national debt has gone up by $5 trillion, the economy has remained in the toilet, and Washington has turned hyper-partisan (blame republicans if you want, but Obama hasn't crossed the aisle either). There really is hardly anything to like about Obama. Hell, the best that his supporters can do is make excuses for him that inevitably involve blaming congressional republicans and/or Bush. It's widely acknowledged by Economists that the stimulus package did actually improve things. The rate of return on the stimulus is still up in the air but the fact that it made things better is demonstrable. This is a moot point though. If I get a credit card and buy new furniture, is my situation better? Of course it is, I have more stuff, I'm more comfortable. When the bill comes in the mail, will I be worse off? Of course, I have less money. The real question is, "On the whole over time are we experiencing a net benefit or a net loss?" And the answer to that question is predicated on something few people truly grasp: Opportunity cost. The notion of opportunity cost is a microeconomics concept not a macroeconomic concept. If your point is comparing what would happen without the stimulus to what happened with the stimulus, than things are better because stimulus in recessions have fiscal multipliers. See for example: http://elsa.berkeley.edu/~cromer/Written Version of Effects of Fiscal Policy.pdfFurthermore, we have another baseline for fiscal austerity: Europe and the 20% unemployment rate in Spain and Greece.
Opportunity cost is a comparison to the next best alternative. If you are assuming that the next best alternative means no stimulus or action at all, then of course you are going to reach the conclusion that the stimulus is a net benefit, but you would be wrong because your premise is wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
