|
|
|
|
On April 20 2012 01:47 paralleluniverse 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. No source. What waste? The stimulus created jobs the link shows. Waste is unemployed. Idle labor. People sitting around doing nothing, not contributing the 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 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. usefulness of work can be gauged by profit and loss. the government doesnt operate based on them, so it cannot ensure its work is useful.
as a result, government spending is always wasteful, and must be minimized for the good of the tax payer
|
On April 20 2012 01:46 Phant wrote:
Over 300 million people ,and we are stuck with these two =(.
LOL.
Best post I've seen so far.
|
On April 20 2012 01:42 scaban84 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2012 01:36 storkfan wrote: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: ![[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. 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.
Core inflation doesn't include food and energy because these are volatile, and including them as likely to underestimate future inflation than to overestimate it.
Core inflation is used, rightly, because it's the best predictor of future (non-core) inflation.
See: http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2008/08/why-do-we-use-c.html
Core inflation is below 2%, inflation is lower than the Fed's target. In fact, the Fed was fearing deflation a few years ago.
Hyperinflation is not coming.
You people have been predicting hyperinflation for years. How much times must you get debunked by the reality of continually low inflation before you admit you are wrong?
Where is this hyperinflation? How much longer must we wait for your totally unsupported prophecy to come to pass?
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
this attitude towards government is rather distinctly american. it has to do with historical alienation of the governing class on the east coast from the heartland. you can read about this some other time but trust me it is right.
rich areas like new england have a more european relation with their government. it's not an econ argument in the end, when the choice of which econ argument to follow depends on an almost instinctual understanding of government as either "doing shit with my money that i wouldn't do" vs "society building institution"
american politics is rather irrational like this.
evidence for this observation is like, 3 posts above this one.
|
On April 20 2012 01:50 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2012 01:42 scaban84 wrote:On April 20 2012 01:36 storkfan wrote: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:
[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. 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. Core inflation doesn't include food and energy because these are volatile, and including them as likely to underestimate future inflation than to overestimate it. Core inflation is used, rightly, because it's the best predictor of future (non-core) inflation. See: http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2008/08/why-do-we-use-c.htmlCore inflation is below 2%, inflation is lower than the Fed's target. In fact, the Fed was fearing deflation a few years ago. Hyperinflation is not coming. You people have been predicting hyperinflation for years. How much times must you get debunked by the reality of continually low inflation before you admit you are wrong? Where is this hyperinflation? How much longer must we wait for your totally unsupported prophecy to come to pass? hyperinflation comes IF fed continues to monetize debt when rates rise. alternative is default
|
On April 20 2012 01:49 storkfan wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2012 01:47 paralleluniverse 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. No source. What waste? The stimulus created jobs the link shows. Waste is unemployed. Idle labor. People sitting around doing nothing, not contributing the 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 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. usefulness of work can be gauged by profit and loss. the government doesnt operate based on them, so it cannot ensure its work is useful. as a result, government spending is always wasteful, and must be minimized for the good of the tax payer
You've dodged half the post.
It's not about profit and loss. You've just made that up.
It's about economic growth and unemployment, and fiscal stimulus in a recession has been shown to increase economic growth by putting idle labor to work.
By your argument, the government putting people to work when 10% of the labor force was doing nothing economically productive is a waste. This is completely absurd. Doing nothing is a waste. Doing something because the government has put you in a job is not.
For an example of what happens when government cuts spending in a recession, you only need to look at Europe, 20% unemployment.
|
On April 20 2012 01:47 RJGooner wrote:Show nested quote +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.
What you're saying isn't accurate at all. A lot of policies go through with bi-partisan support still, even if the number of filibusters etc. went up a lot, and it's usually those that are some of the most awful. The patriot act had bi-partisan support, so have had the Iraq war, various trade agreements that weren't good for the working class etc. I can't really be sure from your post, but a lot of people have some obsession with being "grown-ups", "centrist" usually while supporting policies that are pretty extremist when looked at from a detached PoV.
|
On April 20 2012 01:58 storkfan wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2012 01:50 paralleluniverse wrote:On April 20 2012 01:42 scaban84 wrote:On April 20 2012 01:36 storkfan wrote: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:
[quote]
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. Core inflation doesn't include food and energy because these are volatile, and including them as likely to underestimate future inflation than to overestimate it. Core inflation is used, rightly, because it's the best predictor of future (non-core) inflation. See: http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2008/08/why-do-we-use-c.htmlCore inflation is below 2%, inflation is lower than the Fed's target. In fact, the Fed was fearing deflation a few years ago. Hyperinflation is not coming. You people have been predicting hyperinflation for years. How much times must you get debunked by the reality of continually low inflation before you admit you are wrong? Where is this hyperinflation? How much longer must we wait for your totally unsupported prophecy to come to pass? hyperinflation comes IF fed continues to monetize debt when rates rise. alternative is default
The Fed controls rates.
Hyperinflation will never come. Keep on dreaming.
The Fed has controlled inflation with spectacular success for the last 20 years, since the days of Volcker.
|
On April 20 2012 01:52 oneofthem wrote:
this attitude towards government is rather distinctly american. it has to do with historical alienation of the governing class on the east coast from the heartland. you can read about this some other time but trust me it is right.
rich areas like new england have a more european relation with their government. it's not an econ argument in the end, when the choice of which econ argument to follow depends on an almost instinctual understanding of government as either "doing shit with my money that i wouldn't do" vs "society building institution"
american politics is rather irrational like this.
evidence for this observation is like, 3 posts above this one.
That's an interesting claim, could you tell me the source of it?
|
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.
If you REALLY want to know why spending has seemed to skyrocket since Obama has taken office, you need to look at the recession. Generally, U.S. budget grows pegged to some rate of GDP, between 18-20% (in good times). Since taxes are usually some set % of GDP (17-19%), growth usually outpaces any difference between the 2 numbers. What happens in a recession, like the last one, the bottom drops out from the economy, shrinking the GDP of those involved.
In this case, we lost ~3% of GDP, while government spending increased slightly to prevent a death spiral. This pushed the spending to GDP ratio up to something absurd like 26%, while tax as a percentage of GDP dropped to as low as 15%. The huge increase was mainly due to the shrinking of GDP, the denominator of the ratio, while the decrease in tax rate was a mix of too much tax revenue coming from higher incomes (which are a lot more volatile) and tax breaks as part of stimulus.
When you look back at this relationship between tax income and spending as a percentage of GDP, 2-3 percentage point difference is nothing and we normally see the debt shrink in that scenario, but now we're at a whopping 11% difference, which makes it grow tremendously. To solve this, we'd have to see some great strides in GDP growth, a tax plan to take advantage of the growth, and a plan to draw down government spending. All 3 are necessary because of how much of a problem this is.
|
On April 20 2012 01:50 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2012 01:42 scaban84 wrote:On April 20 2012 01:36 storkfan wrote: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:
[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. 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. Core inflation doesn't include food and energy because these are volatile, and including them as likely to underestimate future inflation than to overestimate it. Core inflation is used, rightly, because it's the best predictor of future (non-core) inflation. See: http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2008/08/why-do-we-use-c.htmlCore inflation is below 2%, inflation is lower than the Fed's target. In fact, the Fed was fearing deflation a few years ago. Hyperinflation is not coming. You people have been predicting hyperinflation for years. How much times must you get debunked by the reality of continually low inflation before you admit you are wrong? Where is this hyperinflation? How much longer must we wait for your totally unsupported prophecy to come to pass?
Lol what? Inflation is not a prediction of inflation. It is the current inflation. And the volatility of food and energy prices is precisely why it must be included to measure the real economic impact of economic policies.
On April 20 2012 01:59 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2012 01:58 storkfan wrote:On April 20 2012 01:50 paralleluniverse wrote:On April 20 2012 01:42 scaban84 wrote:On April 20 2012 01:36 storkfan wrote: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:
[quote]
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. Core inflation doesn't include food and energy because these are volatile, and including them as likely to underestimate future inflation than to overestimate it. Core inflation is used, rightly, because it's the best predictor of future (non-core) inflation. See: http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2008/08/why-do-we-use-c.htmlCore inflation is below 2%, inflation is lower than the Fed's target. In fact, the Fed was fearing deflation a few years ago. Hyperinflation is not coming. You people have been predicting hyperinflation for years. How much times must you get debunked by the reality of continually low inflation before you admit you are wrong? Where is this hyperinflation? How much longer must we wait for your totally unsupported prophecy to come to pass? hyperinflation comes IF fed continues to monetize debt when rates rise. alternative is default The Fed controls rates. Hyperinflation will never come. Keep on dreaming. The Fed has controlled inflation with spectacular success for the last 20 years, since the days of Volcker.
Because only what happened in the past 20 years is relevant to our current situation?
|
On April 20 2012 01:58 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2012 01:49 storkfan wrote:On April 20 2012 01:47 paralleluniverse 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. No source. What waste? The stimulus created jobs the link shows. Waste is unemployed. Idle labor. People sitting around doing nothing, not contributing the 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 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. usefulness of work can be gauged by profit and loss. the government doesnt operate based on them, so it cannot ensure its work is useful. as a result, government spending is always wasteful, and must be minimized for the good of the tax payer You've dodged half the post. It's not about profit and loss. You've just made that up. It's about economic growth and unemployment, and fiscal stimulus in a recession has been shown to increase economic growth by putting idle labor to work. For an example of what happens when government cuts spending in a recession, you only need to look at Europe, 20% unemployment. numerical growth can be a delusion. if you borrow money from your buddy and spend it or employ someone for a bullshit job, your GDP grows. do you become richer? no! How do you know this? Because you operate at a loss to do this!
That is what it all comes down to, PROFIT and LOSS. That is the true indicator of usefulness of resource usage.
|
On April 20 2012 01:58 Grumbels wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2012 01:47 RJGooner wrote: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. What you're saying isn't accurate at all. A lot of policies go through with bi-partisan support still, even if the number of filibusters etc. went up a lot, and it's usually those that are some of the most awful. The patriot act had bi-partisan support, so have had the Iraq war, various trade agreements that weren't good for the working class etc. I can't really be sure from your post, but a lot of people have some obsession with being "grown-ups", "centrist" usually while supporting policies that are pretty extremist when looked at from a detached PoV.
I'm not a centrist. For most issues I'm a pretty conservative guy. I don't deny that certain bills have been passed (I disagree with your view on the trade agreements as well), but the most important issues (as I see it) that haven't been tackled are the deficit (specifically entitlement reform), and tax reform. And there is a LOT of partisan shit that goes on when you bring up these issues.
|
On April 20 2012 02:04 scaban84 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2012 01:50 paralleluniverse wrote:On April 20 2012 01:42 scaban84 wrote:On April 20 2012 01:36 storkfan wrote: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:
[quote]
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. Core inflation doesn't include food and energy because these are volatile, and including them as likely to underestimate future inflation than to overestimate it. Core inflation is used, rightly, because it's the best predictor of future (non-core) inflation. See: http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2008/08/why-do-we-use-c.htmlCore inflation is below 2%, inflation is lower than the Fed's target. In fact, the Fed was fearing deflation a few years ago. Hyperinflation is not coming. You people have been predicting hyperinflation for years. How much times must you get debunked by the reality of continually low inflation before you admit you are wrong? Where is this hyperinflation? How much longer must we wait for your totally unsupported prophecy to come to pass? Lol what? Inflation is not a prediction of inflation. It is the current inflation. And the volatility of food and energy prices is precisely why it must be included to measure the real economic impact of economic policies.
That's not what I said. Core inflation (which is not inflation) is a predictor of inflation (which is inflation) in the future.
Put another way, core inflation today is a good predictor of future non-core inflation, which is why the Fed and economists use core inflation.
|
On April 20 2012 01:48 xUnSeEnx wrote:
*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.
...Why? What does Mitt Romney have to offer? Hell, half his own party doesn't even like him.
But in all seriousness: Why should I vote for Romney?
|
Can't you add a poll for non-US citizens. Even though we should expect some Obama 95% we might have a surprise.
|
On April 20 2012 01:59 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2012 01:58 storkfan wrote:On April 20 2012 01:50 paralleluniverse wrote:On April 20 2012 01:42 scaban84 wrote:On April 20 2012 01:36 storkfan wrote: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:
[quote]
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. Core inflation doesn't include food and energy because these are volatile, and including them as likely to underestimate future inflation than to overestimate it. Core inflation is used, rightly, because it's the best predictor of future (non-core) inflation. See: http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2008/08/why-do-we-use-c.htmlCore inflation is below 2%, inflation is lower than the Fed's target. In fact, the Fed was fearing deflation a few years ago. Hyperinflation is not coming. You people have been predicting hyperinflation for years. How much times must you get debunked by the reality of continually low inflation before you admit you are wrong? Where is this hyperinflation? How much longer must we wait for your totally unsupported prophecy to come to pass? hyperinflation comes IF fed continues to monetize debt when rates rise. alternative is default The Fed controls rates. Hyperinflation will never come. Keep on dreaming. The Fed has controlled inflation with spectacular success for the last 20 years, since the days of Volcker.
Do you remember how Volcker did it? Thats right, by selling bonds. What happens if Fed tries to do that shit now? The bond market will get crushed!
|
Going to be one of the most one-sided elections ever.
|
On April 20 2012 02:09 Talack wrote:
Going to be one of the most one-sided elections ever.
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that. - George Carlin
It's probably going to be closer than people think...
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
