|
|
On April 20 2012 01:26 Klondikebar 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) 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.
The CBO's nonpartisan analysis trumps your ideological gut feeling.
|
On April 20 2012 01:32 storkfan wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2012 01:27 paralleluniverse wrote: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.
This is the mantra of someone who has taken Econ 101 and not gone past that. Yes, government spending is generally less efficient than private sector spending. But Keynesian theory is effective. True Keynesian theory says that short run government spending can improve the economy in a recession. That's exactly what a stimulus is.
|
On April 20 2012 01:32 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2012 01:24 storkfan wrote: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? Soruce? The Fed is tripled the monetary base, where's the inflation? People have been screaming that the sky is falling that are hyperinflation is just around the corner for years now. Where is it? How much longer do we have to wait, before this aploysotic vision comes to pass? How much longer do we have to wait for some econoimic evidence support this abusrd idea that the US is going to have hyperinflation. Core inflation is below the Fed's 2% taraget. 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=1From 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. if you aren't seeing the current ~8-11% price inflation in US you need to go grocery shopping buddy.
The budget projections assume future congresses will cut back on programs, have high gdp growth and LOW govt bond rates. Hyperinflation will come once government tries to continue monetize the debt when rates go up. The alternative is to default, causing banks to go bust as they have massive amounts of govt debt.
|
On April 20 2012 01:36 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2012 01:26 Klondikebar wrote: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) 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. The CBO's nonpartisan analysis trumps your ideological gut feeling.
There is absolutely nothing nonpartisan about the CBO.
|
On April 20 2012 01:36 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2012 01:26 Klondikebar wrote: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) 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. The CBO's nonpartisan analysis trumps your ideological gut feeling.
It's hardly ideological gut feeling. The CBO analysis is forced to take into account assumptions and projections that might have not actually be real. The healthcare bill relies on double counting and gimmicks which the CBO is forced to look past when it does its analysis.
|
On April 20 2012 01:36 Klondikebar wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2012 01:32 storkfan wrote:On April 20 2012 01:27 paralleluniverse wrote: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. This is the mantra of someone who has taken Econ 101 and not gone past that. Yes, government spending is generally less efficient than private sector spending. But Keynesian theory is effective. True Keynesian theory says that short run government spending can improve the economy in a recession. That's exactly what a stimulus is. going deeper in exchange for unproductive work is just that. Insanity. And that is what the government is doing. So my recommendation to you is hold onto your butts, and get your wealth out of dollar denominated assets, as once the low rate bond music stops playing, the economy will come crashing down.
|
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.
That's an easy one.
Even the most right-wing European or Australian is far to the left of the Republican party.
Universal healthcare, free education, social welfare, these are all no-brainers, and widely accepted without contention in every other developed country other than the US.
|
On April 20 2012 01:11 xXFireandIceXx wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2012 01:09 U_G_L_Y wrote:On April 20 2012 00:30 Sweepstakes wrote:On April 20 2012 00:28 U_G_L_Y wrote:On April 19 2012 23:49 xXFireandIceXx wrote:
It's not Romney I'm afraid of, it's the donors to his PACs. Imagine what sort of promises he's made... You realize that he donated his salary as governor to charity because HE DOESNT NEED ANYONE ELSE. Meanwhile, Barack Obama STOLE BONDHOLDER ASSETS in the GM bankruptcy and arbitrarily gave an unequal ownership to the UAW. Which campaign were/are they donating to? These GM bonds were owned by pension funds and senior citizens for crying out loud and he gave a stake in assets to which they were entitled to a group that had no right to them. And you are afraid of Romney being beholden to donors? You are fucking kidding, right? Source? I'm not trying to prove you wrong, I am just genuinely interested. Posting on my phone but National Affairs has an excellent article. Being in the securities industry, I could not understand how they did what they did because it flies in the face of everything I knew about bankruptcy. Google The Auto Bailout And The Rule Of Law and you will find it. TLDR the whole article, jump to the section "the bankruptcy" but the whole thing is good. I think that Obama is a good person but there are several things that have happened on his watch that are mind blowing if you are a serious student of policy. Overall hes been an ok president, I just prefer Romney. And Romney is better for policy and moral scruples? Okay there.
I think Obama is generally a good person and so the only logical conclusion here is that he didnt fully understand what he was doing. I also think Mr. Romney is a very moral person who is unfortunately prone to pandering rhetoric. I would link to other articles that illustrate personal character but again, on my phone, work lets me read but not post. Character, however, is less relevent. Obama is simply less competent when it comes to detailed policy. (Neither will adhere to some of tbeir rhetoric because both men are intelligent. Politics is a game.)
|
We are all children of the summer of globalization. Winter is coming.
|
On April 20 2012 01:36 storkfan wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2012 01:32 paralleluniverse wrote:On April 20 2012 01:24 storkfan wrote: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? Soruce? The Fed is tripled the monetary base, where's the inflation? People have been screaming that the sky is falling that are hyperinflation is just around the corner for years now. Where is it? How much longer do we have to wait, before this aploysotic vision comes to pass? How much longer do we have to wait for some econoimic evidence support this abusrd idea that the US is going to have hyperinflation. Core inflation is below the Fed's 2% taraget. As for spending: Here's some graphs about the deficit: https://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/24/opinion/sunday/24sun4.html?_r=1From 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. if you aren't seeing the current ~8-11% price inflation in US you need to go grocery shopping buddy. The budget projections assume future congresses will cut back on programs, have high gdp growth and LOW govt bond rates. Hyperinflation will come once government tries to continue monetize the debt when rates go up. The alternative is to default, causing banks to go bust as they have massive amounts of govt debt.
Don't forget that "Core inflation" does not include food and energy prices. Inflation is occurring, no matter what gymnastics you do to try and prove otherwise.
|
On April 20 2012 01:39 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2012 01:02 xXFireandIceXx 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. I don't know why, but most internationals like Obama much more than Americans. That's an easy one. Even the most right-wing European or Australian is far to the left of the Republican party. Universal healthcare, free education, social welfare, these are all no-brainers, and widely accepted without contention in every other developed country other than the US.
funny you say that when australia has less govt spending than US and more economic freedom. In fact its a free market wet dream compared to rest of the developed world
|
Welp, IF Obama is elected for a second term, good bye United States, Hello Socialism.
And whoever is trying to compare Bush's spending with Obama (I disliked Bush greatly) is a joke. That much money was spent primarily because of the Patriot Act and then going to War, who cares when it benefits the United States. The money Obama has spent, does not benefit the United States but hurts it waaay more than it needs to be right now.
|
On April 20 2012 01:39 storkfan wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2012 01:36 Klondikebar wrote:On April 20 2012 01:32 storkfan wrote:On April 20 2012 01:27 paralleluniverse wrote: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. This is the mantra of someone who has taken Econ 101 and not gone past that. Yes, government spending is generally less efficient than private sector spending. But Keynesian theory is effective. True Keynesian theory says that short run government spending can improve the economy in a recession. That's exactly what a stimulus is. going deeper in exchange for unproductive work is just that. Insanity. And that is what the government is doing. So my recommendation to you is hold onto your butts, and get your wealth out of dollar denominated assets, as once the low rate bond music stops playing, the economy will come crashing down.
Really? Cause if you want an investment denomination the dollar is precisely what you should be using. The Euro is having a wee bit of trouble right now and the next best thing is...I have no idea honestly...I know China's been attracting a lot of capital recently but the Yuan is hardly the Dollar.
And again, you clearly don't understand the difference between household and government debt. Household's can't carry debt in the same way that the government can.
|
On April 20 2012 01:42 xUnSeEnx wrote:
Welp, IF Obama is elected for a second term, good bye United States, Hello Socialism.
lol
|
On April 20 2012 01:42 xUnSeEnx wrote:
Welp, IF Obama is elected for a second term, good bye United States, Hello Socialism.
And whoever is trying to compare Bush's spending with Obama (I disliked Bush greatly) is a joke. That much money was spent primarily because of the Patriot Act and then going to War, who cares when it benefits the United States. The money Obama has spent, does not benefit the United States but hurts it waaay more than it needs to be right now.
Bush did more for socialism than Obama has ever done.
|
United States737 Posts
Over 300 million people ,and we are stuck with these two =(.
|
On April 20 2012 01:42 xUnSeEnx wrote:
Welp, IF Obama is elected for a second term, good bye United States, Hello Socialism.
And whoever is trying to compare Bush's spending with Obama (I disliked Bush greatly) is a joke. That much money was spent primarily because of the Patriot Act and then going to War, who cares when it benefits the United States. The money Obama has spent, does not benefit the United States but hurts it waaay more than it needs to be right now.
These are the types of comments that are really hurting the political process right now. The problem is that we have parties on both sides that would rather engage in demagoguery than solve actual issues.
|
On April 20 2012 01:32 storkfan wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2012 01:27 paralleluniverse wrote: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.
No source. The stimulus created jobs as the link shows.
What waste? Waste is unemployment. Idle labor. People sitting around doing nothing, not contributing to productive economic activities. Stimulus puts these people to work thereby reducing the waste associated with unused human capital.
Scarcity doesn't apply when there is high unemployment, i.e. people doing nothing, waiting for and wanting to work.
And you have not shown how government spending is by definition wasteful. You've declared it as if you were an armchair economist delivering a sermon on economic truth passed on by god. Government spending is by definition the government spending it's money, nowhere in this definition is the concept of wasteful invoked.
|
On April 20 2012 01:42 Klondikebar wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2012 01:39 storkfan wrote:On April 20 2012 01:36 Klondikebar wrote:On April 20 2012 01:32 storkfan wrote:On April 20 2012 01:27 paralleluniverse wrote: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:
[quote]
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. This is the mantra of someone who has taken Econ 101 and not gone past that. Yes, government spending is generally less efficient than private sector spending. But Keynesian theory is effective. True Keynesian theory says that short run government spending can improve the economy in a recession. That's exactly what a stimulus is. going deeper in exchange for unproductive work is just that. Insanity. And that is what the government is doing. So my recommendation to you is hold onto your butts, and get your wealth out of dollar denominated assets, as once the low rate bond music stops playing, the economy will come crashing down. Really? Cause if you want an investment denomination the dollar is precisely what you should be using. The Euro is having a wee bit of trouble right now and the next best thing is...I have no idea honestly...I know China's been attracting a lot of capital recently but the Yuan is hardly the Dollar. And again, you clearly don't understand the difference between household and government debt. Household's can't carry debt in the same way that the government can. when the dollar comes crashing down, it wont be pretty. euro has monetized greeces debt now so its short term reliable, but only due to doingthe same mistakes that US is doing at a far higher scale.
and there is no difference between houshold and govt debt. you can also show your household economy is growing if you borrow and spend your money. are you becoming richer? its the illusion of GDP arithmetics.
|
*sigh* If you want the country destroyed further then Vote for Obama, if you want it a possibility of salvaging what is destroyed and maybe some type of solution, then vote for Romney.
User was warned for this post
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
