On July 07 2012 02:24 Lightwip wrote: For that reason, I think the Bain Capital argument is one of the strongest Obama has. Tie Romney to the selfish businessmen who made the recession happen and he'll lose support from those who care about the economy.
I'm not sure scapegoating businessmen as the singular cause of the recession will get him very far beyond his base.
I think Obama should highlight why the idea of running the country like a business, such as Bain, is a terrible idea. That would take away some of the "strengths" of Romney's business credentials.
On July 07 2012 02:24 Lightwip wrote: For that reason, I think the Bain Capital argument is one of the strongest Obama has. Tie Romney to the selfish businessmen who made the recession happen and he'll lose support from those who care about the economy.
I'm not sure scapegoating businessmen as the singular cause of the recession will get him very far beyond his base.
Maybe not for the GFC, but it did contribute to the growing income inequality gap.
On July 06 2012 21:24 marconi wrote: Sure, Americans did a lot of good for the world, no one can argue that.
But the fact is, your government's policy has always been one of conquering, wars, and spreading of their influence.
What's even worse, behind all that politics bullshit, lies a deep, deep web of the real people in power, and that would be the bankers who hold basically ALL the money. We all know that money = power. You see, the US is not run by the republicans or democrats, it is run by the multi billion trillion zillion worth banks. And these banks have several interests, including robbing the people blind, finding oil in other countries, spreading the "American way" to other countries so that their banks turn the citizens into slaves of loans, and well doing everything and anything in order to gain profit no matter the cost. This obvious influence can be felt in my country in the last decade, we are slowly turning into Americans, and that means the worst consumer slave zombies on the planet.
I look at your people, and I truly feel sad for what has become, but it is not the people's fault, because the people are sheep and easy to manipulate, just look at your mass media and the messages they are sending every day. Your society has degenerated so much under the guise of "liberty", free capitalism" and all the other crap they are selling you every day.
On the other hand your military spending is the biggest in the world, and you people don't even have free healthcare. What a nice "government". But then again, if everyone was healthy, what would the pharmaceutical industry do? Weapons are the no1 export of America, forget apple, forget google, the real money is in weaponry. And you do a hell of a good job in providing everyone with their basic weapon needs.
And don't forget the near-fascist laws that your dear "president" Obama passed, including the right for the state to hold you in prison for 6 months without trial ( which was first used by Israel, what a coincidence ), then you have that tiny law that enables them to strip you of all your human rights if you are "suspected for terrorism".
And then, every 4 years, the American people get a new fun way to waste time and turn their attention from things that actually matter: the presidential election. Certainly a big thing, where people get to choose their new president who will bring change and progress. The people's votes will decide, and the people will be happy.
I could write like this for hours, about how your country bombed your very own soil with over 500 nukes for their nuclear testing, how your banks gave out loans to other countries in the value of your entire state budget, and so on...
But go ahead Americans, have fun, elect your new leader, and be happy that you are living in the greatest country in the world.
You're an idiot.
Almost none of what you said is correct, but rather a pretty stereotypical example of blind America bashing. "You could write like this for hours" For the love of everyone's sanity, please don't. Your post has already been reported so there's really no reason to go on any further, but this is the US Election Thread, not the "I hate America let's find some venue to spew my hatred and get a response" Thread
On July 06 2012 21:24 marconi wrote: Sure, Americans did a lot of good for the world, no one can argue that.
But the fact is, your government's policy has always been one of conquering, wars, and spreading of their influence.
What's even worse, behind all that politics bullshit, lies a deep, deep web of the real people in power, and that would be the bankers who hold basically ALL the money. We all know that money = power. You see, the US is not run by the republicans or democrats, it is run by the multi billion trillion zillion worth banks. And these banks have several interests, including robbing the people blind, finding oil in other countries, spreading the "American way" to other countries so that their banks turn the citizens into slaves of loans, and well doing everything and anything in order to gain profit no matter the cost. This obvious influence can be felt in my country in the last decade, we are slowly turning into Americans, and that means the worst consumer slave zombies on the planet.
I look at your people, and I truly feel sad for what has become, but it is not the people's fault, because the people are sheep and easy to manipulate, just look at your mass media and the messages they are sending every day. Your society has degenerated so much under the guise of "liberty", free capitalism" and all the other crap they are selling you every day.
On the other hand your military spending is the biggest in the world, and you people don't even have free healthcare. What a nice "government". But then again, if everyone was healthy, what would the pharmaceutical industry do? Weapons are the no1 export of America, forget apple, forget google, the real money is in weaponry. And you do a hell of a good job in providing everyone with their basic weapon needs.
And don't forget the near-fascist laws that your dear "president" Obama passed, including the right for the state to hold you in prison for 6 months without trial ( which was first used by Israel, what a coincidence ), then you have that tiny law that enables them to strip you of all your human rights if you are "suspected for terrorism".
And then, every 4 years, the American people get a new fun way to waste time and turn their attention from things that actually matter: the presidential election. Certainly a big thing, where people get to choose their new president who will bring change and progress. The people's votes will decide, and the people will be happy.
I could write like this for hours, about how your country bombed your very own soil with over 500 nukes for their nuclear testing, how your banks gave out loans to other countries in the value of your entire state budget, and so on...
But go ahead Americans, have fun, elect your new leader, and be happy that you are living in the greatest country in the world.
Yeah croatia. Great country! Not really. Corruption corruption and more corruption. Almost like those african countries. Maybe even worse.
On July 07 2012 02:24 Lightwip wrote: For that reason, I think the Bain Capital argument is one of the strongest Obama has. Tie Romney to the selfish businessmen who made the recession happen and he'll lose support from those who care about the economy.
I'm not sure scapegoating businessmen as the singular cause of the recession will get him very far beyond his base.
Considering Romney is running on the idea of "I know why jobs come and why they go," it's a stronger argument than you give it credit for.
On July 07 2012 02:24 Lightwip wrote: For that reason, I think the Bain Capital argument is one of the strongest Obama has. Tie Romney to the selfish businessmen who made the recession happen and he'll lose support from those who care about the economy.
I'm not sure scapegoating businessmen as the singular cause of the recession will get him very far beyond his base.
Considering Romney is running on the idea of "I know why jobs come and why they go," it's a stronger argument than you give it credit for.
Maybe it'll work. I really don't get it though. Private equity (Bain Capital) really had nothing to do with the recession. If we were talking about Romney as a mortgage lender that operated with questionable credit checks the argument would have some merit. But picking in Bain Capital as being "greedy" is just irrelevant mud slinging to me.
On July 07 2012 02:47 Adila wrote: I think Obama should highlight why the idea of running the country like a business, such as Bain, is a terrible idea. That would take away some of the "strengths" of Romney's business credentials.
As opposed to running the country as if cost-benefit doesn't exist? I wonder how many people the government could have truly helped if it hadn't spent 1 trillion plus on the "stimulus" and other loans that benefitted the politically connected, spending hundreds of thousands of dollars per job "created or saved" and here we are still at 8%+ "official" unemployment and it's not getting better, it's stagnating at best.
On July 07 2012 02:24 Lightwip wrote: For that reason, I think the Bain Capital argument is one of the strongest Obama has. Tie Romney to the selfish businessmen who made the recession happen and he'll lose support from those who care about the economy.
I'm not sure scapegoating businessmen as the singular cause of the recession will get him very far beyond his base.
Considering Romney is running on the idea of "I know why jobs come and why they go," it's a stronger argument than you give it credit for.
Maybe it'll work. I really don't get it though. Private equity (Bain Capital) really had nothing to do with the recession. If we were talking about Romney as a mortgage lender that operated with questionable credit checks the argument would have some merit. But picking in Bain Capital as being "greedy" is just irrelevant mud slinging to me.
Really I dont think the businessman angle will play as a positive or a negative. People know he is successful but then that is practically a prerequisite for candidacy. Romney is probably tempted to play up his private sector experience and Obama is probably tempted to play up they private sector greed but that is mostly because they belong to the one percent (or less) that actually understands what Bain Capital does. To most people it is just esoteric money trafficking and that is all they care to know. On this basis, negative or positive views have already been established based on ideologies and so both candidates should just let it go.
On July 07 2012 02:24 Lightwip wrote: For that reason, I think the Bain Capital argument is one of the strongest Obama has. Tie Romney to the selfish businessmen who made the recession happen and he'll lose support from those who care about the economy.
I'm not sure scapegoating businessmen as the singular cause of the recession will get him very far beyond his base.
Considering Romney is running on the idea of "I know why jobs come and why they go," it's a stronger argument than you give it credit for.
Maybe it'll work. I really don't get it though. Private equity (Bain Capital) really had nothing to do with the recession. If we were talking about Romney as a mortgage lender that operated with questionable credit checks the argument would have some merit. But picking in Bain Capital as being "greedy" is just irrelevant mud slinging to me.
Really I dont think the businessman angle will play as a positive or a negative. People know he is successful but then that is practically a prerequisite for candidacy. Romney is probably tempted to play up his private sector experience and Obama is probably tempted to play up they private sector greed but that is mostly because they belong to the one percent (or less) that actually understands what Bain Capital does. To most people it is just esoteric money trafficking and that is all they care to know. On this basis, negative or positive views have already been established based on ideologies and so both candidates should just let it go.
You're right about it not really mattering, but you're citing the wrong reasons. It's not going to matter because the election is ultimately going to be a referendum on Obama -- not Romney.
On July 07 2012 02:47 Adila wrote: I think Obama should highlight why the idea of running the country like a business, such as Bain, is a terrible idea. That would take away some of the "strengths" of Romney's business credentials.
As opposed to running the country as if cost-benefit doesn't exist? I wonder how many people the government could have truly helped if it hadn't spent 1 trillion plus on the "stimulus" and other loans that benefitted the politically connected, spending hundreds of thousands of dollars per job "created or saved" and here we are still at 8%+ "official" unemployment and it's not getting better, it's stagnating at best.
There's more to running a government than basing it entirely on a cost-benefit analysis. If we wanted government to be run that way, just elect a computer.
How about all the money spent on stupid wars in Afghanistan and Iraq? I don't see Romney calling for any withdrawals and such. If he were running it like a business, would he keep funding those stupid wars? What does the cost-benefit analysis tell you?
On July 07 2012 02:47 Adila wrote: I think Obama should highlight why the idea of running the country like a business, such as Bain, is a terrible idea. That would take away some of the "strengths" of Romney's business credentials.
As opposed to running the country as if cost-benefit doesn't exist? I wonder how many people the government could have truly helped if it hadn't spent 1 trillion plus on the "stimulus" and other loans that benefitted the politically connected, spending hundreds of thousands of dollars per job "created or saved" and here we are still at 8%+ "official" unemployment and it's not getting better, it's stagnating at best.
Finally, the stimulus was $700 billion, not over a trillion. Christina Romer argued that the stimulus should have been $1.8 billion, as did other economists, but her proposal never made it to Obama. And in hindsight she was right, the stimulus was far too small, as you can see from the graph below, the output gap was almost $2 billion.
On July 07 2012 02:24 Lightwip wrote: For that reason, I think the Bain Capital argument is one of the strongest Obama has. Tie Romney to the selfish businessmen who made the recession happen and he'll lose support from those who care about the economy.
I'm not sure scapegoating businessmen as the singular cause of the recession will get him very far beyond his base.
Considering Romney is running on the idea of "I know why jobs come and why they go," it's a stronger argument than you give it credit for.
Maybe it'll work. I really don't get it though. Private equity (Bain Capital) really had nothing to do with the recession. If we were talking about Romney as a mortgage lender that operated with questionable credit checks the argument would have some merit. But picking in Bain Capital as being "greedy" is just irrelevant mud slinging to me.
The virtue of hard linking Romney with Bain Capital is that the general public (well, outside the GOP base) associates "big corporations" with a combination of layoffs and outsourcing, regardless of what they actually have done. More than that, it's an attempt to galvanize the OWS people to actually vote for Obama in 2012, similarly to how Romney will continue to talk about revoking Obamacare while keeping most of its provisions. Whether or not it's true is not that relevant.
On July 07 2012 02:24 Lightwip wrote: For that reason, I think the Bain Capital argument is one of the strongest Obama has. Tie Romney to the selfish businessmen who made the recession happen and he'll lose support from those who care about the economy.
I'm not sure scapegoating businessmen as the singular cause of the recession will get him very far beyond his base.
Considering Romney is running on the idea of "I know why jobs come and why they go," it's a stronger argument than you give it credit for.
Maybe it'll work. I really don't get it though. Private equity (Bain Capital) really had nothing to do with the recession. If we were talking about Romney as a mortgage lender that operated with questionable credit checks the argument would have some merit. But picking in Bain Capital as being "greedy" is just irrelevant mud slinging to me.
The virtue of hard linking Romney with Bain Capital is that the general public (well, outside the GOP base) associates "big corporations" with a combination of layoffs and outsourcing, regardless of what they actually have done. More than that, it's an attempt to galvanize the OWS people to actually vote for Obama in 2012, similarly to how Romney will continue to talk about revoking Obamacare while keeping most of its provisions. Whether or not it's true is not that relevant.
On July 07 2012 02:24 Lightwip wrote: For that reason, I think the Bain Capital argument is one of the strongest Obama has. Tie Romney to the selfish businessmen who made the recession happen and he'll lose support from those who care about the economy.
I'm not sure scapegoating businessmen as the singular cause of the recession will get him very far beyond his base.
Considering Romney is running on the idea of "I know why jobs come and why they go," it's a stronger argument than you give it credit for.
Maybe it'll work. I really don't get it though. Private equity (Bain Capital) really had nothing to do with the recession. If we were talking about Romney as a mortgage lender that operated with questionable credit checks the argument would have some merit. But picking in Bain Capital as being "greedy" is just irrelevant mud slinging to me.
The virtue of hard linking Romney with Bain Capital is that the general public (well, outside the GOP base) associates "big corporations" with a combination of layoffs and outsourcing, regardless of what they actually have done. More than that, it's an attempt to galvanize the OWS people to actually vote for Obama in 2012, similarly to how Romney will continue to talk about revoking Obamacare while keeping most of its provisions. Whether or not it's true is not that relevant.
On July 07 2012 02:47 Adila wrote: I think Obama should highlight why the idea of running the country like a business, such as Bain, is a terrible idea. That would take away some of the "strengths" of Romney's business credentials.
As opposed to running the country as if cost-benefit doesn't exist? I wonder how many people the government could have truly helped if it hadn't spent 1 trillion plus on the "stimulus" and other loans that benefitted the politically connected, spending hundreds of thousands of dollars per job "created or saved" and here we are still at 8%+ "official" unemployment and it's not getting better, it's stagnating at best.
The stimulus did work but the criticism is that it could have been structured to work better. Moreover, other policies have had the opposite effect - such as increased regulation and the threat of more regulation and higher taxes.
Is there proof that things could have been done better? Not really, yet this particular recovery has sucked. Hard.
Could someone else have done better? I have no idea - nor does anyone else. However, when you are the guy in charge you are responsible, whether it is your fault or not.
On July 07 2012 02:47 Adila wrote: I think Obama should highlight why the idea of running the country like a business, such as Bain, is a terrible idea. That would take away some of the "strengths" of Romney's business credentials.
As opposed to running the country as if cost-benefit doesn't exist? I wonder how many people the government could have truly helped if it hadn't spent 1 trillion plus on the "stimulus" and other loans that benefitted the politically connected, spending hundreds of thousands of dollars per job "created or saved" and here we are still at 8%+ "official" unemployment and it's not getting better, it's stagnating at best.
The stimulus did work but the criticism is that it could have been structured to work better. Moreover, other policies have had the opposite effect - such as increased regulation and the threat of more regulation and higher taxes.
Is there proof that things could have been done better? Not really, yet this particular recovery has sucked. Hard.
Could someone else have done better? I have no idea - nor does anyone else. However, when you are the guy in charge you are responsible, whether it is your fault or not.
This is only a given when one totally misunderstands how the US government actually works. Then again, such is the case with many uninformed Americans, so the onus is on those who DO understand the role of government influence in economics to spread some knowledge.
On July 07 2012 02:47 Adila wrote: I think Obama should highlight why the idea of running the country like a business, such as Bain, is a terrible idea. That would take away some of the "strengths" of Romney's business credentials.
As opposed to running the country as if cost-benefit doesn't exist? I wonder how many people the government could have truly helped if it hadn't spent 1 trillion plus on the "stimulus" and other loans that benefitted the politically connected, spending hundreds of thousands of dollars per job "created or saved" and here we are still at 8%+ "official" unemployment and it's not getting better, it's stagnating at best.
The stimulus did work but the criticism is that it could have been structured to work better. Moreover, other policies have had the opposite effect - such as increased regulation and the threat of more regulation and higher taxes.
Is there proof that things could have been done better? Not really, yet this particular recovery has sucked. Hard.
Could someone else have done better? I have no idea - nor does anyone else. However, when you are the guy in charge you are responsible, whether it is your fault or not.
If they truly believed that stimulus works, but that it could be structured better (highly dubious that they believe this, as I've never seen a Republican say it), then surely they should be asking for MORE stimulus, but this time done right, not a European pivot to massive austerity. So either they are disingenuous or playing politics.
The comparison to past recessions is unfair. Those previous recessions were not caused by a financial crisis where the Fed has hit the zero lower bound. For example the 80s recession was self-induced by the Fed's (successful) attempt to end stagflation, and the economy recovered when the Fed decided to loosen monetary policy.
In this case, the recession was caused by the GFC, where households built up a lot of debt, mostly through housing, and when the economy crashed households were forced to pay down that debt, and so aggregate demand collapses. Thus the paradox of thrift applies: spending = income, so when everyone stops spending everyone's income falls.
These factors of massive household debt build up, forced deleveraging, and Fed at the ZLB make this recession principally unique.
EPT![[image loading]](http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2012/07/06/opinion/070612krugman1/070612krugman1-blog480.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://media.economist.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/original-size/20110730_WOC311.gif)
