On August 14 2012 02:52 aksfjh wrote: Natural resources virtually DO fall from the sky. Prices reflect the rate at which they fall. Prices also reflect the capacity of production. Being able to produce more from less, whether it's less time, raw materials, or investment, increases the availability of that product to society.
Capitalism is obviously not promoting efficient use of resources.
Keep in mind one of our most important resources is wiggle room in the carbon cycle, which we a) don't price and b) are basically out of.
You enjoying your life or getting an education doesn't necessarily equate a good investment either (in the name of capitalism). You'd have to put that life experience or education to work.
This is the problem with capitalism. Its priorities are upside down.
You should work in order to have life experiences and education. Not the other way around.
This is why putting forth capital for investments is almost always a good idea. It's very hard to invest in materials and personnel without somehow increasing the production capacity of society. The debate should be centered around what investment does the most, and if it could be better invested when in the hands of other individuals/groups.
But what if you are increasing production capacity for something useless, or outright detrimental?
Will try to avoid getting too deep into economics again in this thread since it's not really an economic thread. However, I'd say that by your definitions of success and waste, profitable businesses can actually be worse than failed businesses. A business that is profitable, but making profits in such a way that it hurts the environment would be worse than one that fails and can only hurt the environment for a short period of time.
So it's really not a matter of success or failure, it's what they do with the business that would determine if it's good for the overall society... which is different from what is good for the economy.
Getting back onto topic, I wouldn't count Romney out yet. As long as we have a stagnant economy, people will get angrier and angrier at Obama. If the stock market drops right before the election (easy enough to manipulate in the short term), that could be the final nail in the coffin for Obama in the eyes of a lot of swing voters. Whether it's his fault or not, the president will always be blamed for a bad economy and people link the stock market to the economy too much. As long as the Republicans can distance themselves from any actual plans and only speak in rhetoric, they've got a chance.
They just have to count on the anti-Obama movement while dodging their own past. Romney is an expert at dodging his own past.
Getting back onto topic, I wouldn't count Romney out yet. As long as we have a stagnant economy, people will get angrier and angrier at Obama. If the stock market drops right before the election (easy enough to manipulate in the short term), that could be the final nail in the coffin for Obama in the eyes of a lot of swing voters. Whether it's his fault or not, the president will always be blamed for a bad economy and people link the stock market to the economy too much. As long as the Republicans can distance themselves from any actual plans and only speak in rhetoric, they've got a chance.
Well, let's get back to talking about Obama. I haven't once heard anyone accuse him of being a good president. "Better than Romney" isn't high praise, given what most posters seem to think of him.
Personally, my big beef with President Obama is his deliberate and intentional decision NOT to prosecute Wall Street for any fraud. Hell, he hasn't even forced them to take any haircuts or eat any big losses. No matter how big of a free market person you are, fraud is still wrong and it's the government's duty to protect the public by ruthlessly rooting it out and prosecuting it, right?
Can Romney do better? IMO he could hardly be worse. Romney shouldn't be intimidated by big resumes and he should have the balls to stare down Wall Street. That he flip-flops and caves in to public pressure is GOOD, at least compared to the fact that Obama seems to be scared of offending big name donors. At this moment in time, you want the guy who listens to the public, not the guy who listens to the people with the shiniest credentials.
Getting back onto topic, I wouldn't count Romney out yet. As long as we have a stagnant economy, people will get angrier and angrier at Obama. If the stock market drops right before the election (easy enough to manipulate in the short term), that could be the final nail in the coffin for Obama in the eyes of a lot of swing voters. Whether it's his fault or not, the president will always be blamed for a bad economy and people link the stock market to the economy too much. As long as the Republicans can distance themselves from any actual plans and only speak in rhetoric, they've got a chance.
Well, let's get back to talking about Obama. I haven't once heard anyone accuse him of being a good president. "Better than Romney" isn't high praise, given what most posters seem to think of him.
Personally, my big beef with President Obama is his deliberate and intentional decision NOT to prosecute Wall Street for any fraud. Hell, he hasn't even forced them to take any haircuts or eat any big losses. No matter how big of a free market person you are, fraud is still wrong and it's the government's duty to protect the public by ruthlessly rooting it out and prosecuting it, right?
Can Romney do better? IMO he could hardly be worse. Romney shouldn't be intimidated by big resumes and he should have the balls to stare down Wall Street. That he flip-flops and caves in to public pressure is GOOD, at least compared to the fact that Obama seems to be scared of offending big name donors. At this moment in time, you want the guy who listens to the public, not the guy who listens to the people with the shiniest credentials.
I think he's a decent president. I preferred Hillary Clinton, but I got Obama, and overall while I've had beefs with Obama and some of his policies, his overall term has been good. He's done most of the things I thought he would do.
Has Obama lived up to the hype? I don't think anyone can say that, I'm pretty sure people expected Obama to be the savior, who would swoop us back out of the rut were in and make everything ok, and we can go back to living our daily lives without a care in the world, and I just didn't have those expectations. I don't expect any president to be able to turn around the economy with a magic touch instantly, I'm pretty sure these things take time and reform, and not just single bills or policy changes.
Getting back onto topic, I wouldn't count Romney out yet. As long as we have a stagnant economy, people will get angrier and angrier at Obama. If the stock market drops right before the election (easy enough to manipulate in the short term), that could be the final nail in the coffin for Obama in the eyes of a lot of swing voters. Whether it's his fault or not, the president will always be blamed for a bad economy and people link the stock market to the economy too much. As long as the Republicans can distance themselves from any actual plans and only speak in rhetoric, they've got a chance.
Well, let's get back to talking about Obama. I haven't once heard anyone accuse him of being a good president. "Better than Romney" isn't high praise, given what most posters seem to think of him.
Personally, my big beef with President Obama is his deliberate and intentional decision NOT to prosecute Wall Street for any fraud. Hell, he hasn't even forced them to take any haircuts or eat any big losses. No matter how big of a free market person you are, fraud is still wrong and it's the government's duty to protect the public by ruthlessly rooting it out and prosecuting it, right?
Can Romney do better? IMO he could hardly be worse. Romney shouldn't be intimidated by big resumes and he should have the balls to stare down Wall Street. That he flip-flops and caves in to public pressure is GOOD, at least compared to the fact that Obama seems to be scared of offending big name donors. At this moment in time, you want the guy who listens to the public, not the guy who listens to the people with the shiniest credentials.
Wait, what? You're telling me you sincerely believe Romney will be tougher on "Wall Street" than Obama? Romney, the guy that doesn't even support Dodd-Frank and keeps calling for "less regulation"?
Getting back onto topic, I wouldn't count Romney out yet. As long as we have a stagnant economy, people will get angrier and angrier at Obama. If the stock market drops right before the election (easy enough to manipulate in the short term), that could be the final nail in the coffin for Obama in the eyes of a lot of swing voters. Whether it's his fault or not, the president will always be blamed for a bad economy and people link the stock market to the economy too much. As long as the Republicans can distance themselves from any actual plans and only speak in rhetoric, they've got a chance.
Well, let's get back to talking about Obama. I haven't once heard anyone accuse him of being a good president. "Better than Romney" isn't high praise, given what most posters seem to think of him.
Personally, my big beef with President Obama is his deliberate and intentional decision NOT to prosecute Wall Street for any fraud. Hell, he hasn't even forced them to take any haircuts or eat any big losses. No matter how big of a free market person you are, fraud is still wrong and it's the government's duty to protect the public by ruthlessly rooting it out and prosecuting it, right?
Can Romney do better? IMO he could hardly be worse. Romney shouldn't be intimidated by big resumes and he should have the balls to stare down Wall Street. That he flip-flops and caves in to public pressure is GOOD, at least compared to the fact that Obama seems to be scared of offending big name donors. At this moment in time, you want the guy who listens to the public, not the guy who listens to the people with the shiniest credentials.
Caving to public pressure to get elected is quite different from caving to public pressure after getting elected. Most Wall St. guys are probably his friends.
Also, I doubt the Republicans in Congress have the stomach for any trials against business. Just look at how hard they tried to kiss Jamie Dimon's ass during the recent hearings.
Getting back onto topic, I wouldn't count Romney out yet. As long as we have a stagnant economy, people will get angrier and angrier at Obama. If the stock market drops right before the election (easy enough to manipulate in the short term), that could be the final nail in the coffin for Obama in the eyes of a lot of swing voters. Whether it's his fault or not, the president will always be blamed for a bad economy and people link the stock market to the economy too much. As long as the Republicans can distance themselves from any actual plans and only speak in rhetoric, they've got a chance.
Well, let's get back to talking about Obama. I haven't once heard anyone accuse him of being a good president. "Better than Romney" isn't high praise, given what most posters seem to think of him.
Personally, my big beef with President Obama is his deliberate and intentional decision NOT to prosecute Wall Street for any fraud. Hell, he hasn't even forced them to take any haircuts or eat any big losses. No matter how big of a free market person you are, fraud is still wrong and it's the government's duty to protect the public by ruthlessly rooting it out and prosecuting it, right?
Can Romney do better? IMO he could hardly be worse. Romney shouldn't be intimidated by big resumes and he should have the balls to stare down Wall Street. That he flip-flops and caves in to public pressure is GOOD, at least compared to the fact that Obama seems to be scared of offending big name donors. At this moment in time, you want the guy who listens to the public, not the guy who listens to the people with the shiniest credentials.
Caving to public pressure to get elected is quite different from caving to public pressure after getting elected. Most Wall St. guys are probably his friends.
Also, I doubt the Republicans in Congress have the stomach for any trials against business. Just look at how hard they tried to kiss Jamie Dimon's ass during the recent hearings.
It's worth pointing out that the Bush administration did in fact prosecute accounting fraud, not allowing companies to pay settlements and go back to continuing their business. As we speak, the Obama administration is negotiating a settlement for Standard Chartered, who is as brazenly guilty as it gets.
Getting back onto topic, I wouldn't count Romney out yet. As long as we have a stagnant economy, people will get angrier and angrier at Obama. If the stock market drops right before the election (easy enough to manipulate in the short term), that could be the final nail in the coffin for Obama in the eyes of a lot of swing voters. Whether it's his fault or not, the president will always be blamed for a bad economy and people link the stock market to the economy too much. As long as the Republicans can distance themselves from any actual plans and only speak in rhetoric, they've got a chance.
Well, let's get back to talking about Obama. I haven't once heard anyone accuse him of being a good president. "Better than Romney" isn't high praise, given what most posters seem to think of him.
Personally, my big beef with President Obama is his deliberate and intentional decision NOT to prosecute Wall Street for any fraud. Hell, he hasn't even forced them to take any haircuts or eat any big losses. No matter how big of a free market person you are, fraud is still wrong and it's the government's duty to protect the public by ruthlessly rooting it out and prosecuting it, right?
Can Romney do better? IMO he could hardly be worse. Romney shouldn't be intimidated by big resumes and he should have the balls to stare down Wall Street. That he flip-flops and caves in to public pressure is GOOD, at least compared to the fact that Obama seems to be scared of offending big name donors. At this moment in time, you want the guy who listens to the public, not the guy who listens to the people with the shiniest credentials.
I think Obama could have been better. Like most supporters and economists, we think he should have put more political capital into stronger economic stimulus over healthcare, but I think he just misjudged the opposition he would get from the right. He came to the table at the beginning, largely using what the GOP had written up in the 90s, and the GOP just stonewalled him.
Seeing his use of executive powers recently, however, have given me hope. He's finally beginning to work around a "do nothing" Congress to promote his policies. I can only extend that hope to another term, where he'll be able to throw around a lot more weight into his policies.
Getting back onto topic, I wouldn't count Romney out yet. As long as we have a stagnant economy, people will get angrier and angrier at Obama. If the stock market drops right before the election (easy enough to manipulate in the short term), that could be the final nail in the coffin for Obama in the eyes of a lot of swing voters. Whether it's his fault or not, the president will always be blamed for a bad economy and people link the stock market to the economy too much. As long as the Republicans can distance themselves from any actual plans and only speak in rhetoric, they've got a chance.
Well, let's get back to talking about Obama. I haven't once heard anyone accuse him of being a good president. "Better than Romney" isn't high praise, given what most posters seem to think of him.
Personally, my big beef with President Obama is his deliberate and intentional decision NOT to prosecute Wall Street for any fraud. Hell, he hasn't even forced them to take any haircuts or eat any big losses. No matter how big of a free market person you are, fraud is still wrong and it's the government's duty to protect the public by ruthlessly rooting it out and prosecuting it, right?
Can Romney do better? IMO he could hardly be worse. Romney shouldn't be intimidated by big resumes and he should have the balls to stare down Wall Street. That he flip-flops and caves in to public pressure is GOOD, at least compared to the fact that Obama seems to be scared of offending big name donors. At this moment in time, you want the guy who listens to the public, not the guy who listens to the people with the shiniest credentials.
I think Obama could have been better. Like most supporters and economists, we think he should have put more political capital into stronger economic stimulus over healthcare, but I think he just misjudged the opposition he would get from the right. He came to the table at the beginning, largely using what the GOP had written up in the 90s, and the GOP just stonewalled him.
Seeing his use of executive powers recently, however, have given me hope. He's finally beginning to work around a "do nothing" Congress to promote his policies. I can only extend that hope to another term, where he'll be able to throw around a lot more weight into his policies.
This is my sentiment almost to a T, I am genuinely excited to see what Obama can do with another 4 years. And I am personally predicting some democratic house and senate election wins that may very well signal a stark change in national governance. The thought of a harmonious relationship between the legislative and executive branches makes me giddy.
Getting back onto topic, I wouldn't count Romney out yet. As long as we have a stagnant economy, people will get angrier and angrier at Obama. If the stock market drops right before the election (easy enough to manipulate in the short term), that could be the final nail in the coffin for Obama in the eyes of a lot of swing voters. Whether it's his fault or not, the president will always be blamed for a bad economy and people link the stock market to the economy too much. As long as the Republicans can distance themselves from any actual plans and only speak in rhetoric, they've got a chance.
Well, let's get back to talking about Obama. I haven't once heard anyone accuse him of being a good president. "Better than Romney" isn't high praise, given what most posters seem to think of him.
Personally, my big beef with President Obama is his deliberate and intentional decision NOT to prosecute Wall Street for any fraud. Hell, he hasn't even forced them to take any haircuts or eat any big losses. No matter how big of a free market person you are, fraud is still wrong and it's the government's duty to protect the public by ruthlessly rooting it out and prosecuting it, right?
Can Romney do better? IMO he could hardly be worse. Romney shouldn't be intimidated by big resumes and he should have the balls to stare down Wall Street. That he flip-flops and caves in to public pressure is GOOD, at least compared to the fact that Obama seems to be scared of offending big name donors. At this moment in time, you want the guy who listens to the public, not the guy who listens to the people with the shiniest credentials.
I think Obama could have been better. Like most supporters and economists, we think he should have put more political capital into stronger economic stimulus over healthcare, but I think he just misjudged the opposition he would get from the right. He came to the table at the beginning, largely using what the GOP had written up in the 90s, and the GOP just stonewalled him.
Seeing his use of executive powers recently, however, have given me hope. He's finally beginning to work around a "do nothing" Congress to promote his policies. I can only extend that hope to another term, where he'll be able to throw around a lot more weight into his policies.
This is my sentiment almost to a T, I am genuinely excited to see what Obama can do with another 4 years. And I am personally predicting some democratic house and senate election wins that may very well signal a stark change in national governance. The thought of a harmonious relationship between the legislative and executive branches makes me giddy.
I honestly expect Republicans to make modest gains in both houses, but Obama to win the general. The only good thing about that though is that they would then have to own up to failures to both close the deficit and excite the economy.
On August 14 2012 08:19 farvacola wrote: This is my sentiment almost to a T, I am genuinely excited to see what Obama can do with another 4 years. And I am personally predicting some democratic house and senate election wins that may very well signal a stark change in national governance. The thought of a harmonious relationship between the legislative and executive branches makes me giddy.
The Democrats may see some gains in the House this year, but keep in mind that with the new congressional maps, the median congressional district should have a Partisan Voter Index of nearly R+3. What that basically translates into is that in an election like 2008, the parties would split the House of Representatives evenly.
This is why it's really, really bad if you get demolished in an election right before a new redistricting. (ie 2010)
On August 14 2012 02:52 aksfjh wrote: Natural resources virtually DO fall from the sky. Prices reflect the rate at which they fall. Prices also reflect the capacity of production. Being able to produce more from less, whether it's less time, raw materials, or investment, increases the availability of that product to society.
Capitalism is obviously not promoting efficient use of resources.
Keep in mind one of our most important resources is wiggle room in the carbon cycle, which we a) don't price and b) are basically out of.
You enjoying your life or getting an education doesn't necessarily equate a good investment either (in the name of capitalism). You'd have to put that life experience or education to work.
This is the problem with capitalism. Its priorities are upside down.
You should work in order to have life experiences and education. Not the other way around.
This is why putting forth capital for investments is almost always a good idea. It's very hard to invest in materials and personnel without somehow increasing the production capacity of society. The debate should be centered around what investment does the most, and if it could be better invested when in the hands of other individuals/groups.
But what if you are increasing production capacity for something useless, or outright detrimental?
It only becomes useless when nobody is willing to pay anything for it.
You are making the mistake of equating exchange-value with use-value.
People very often pay money for things that are useless.
(As Benjamin puts it, "the collector liberates things from the drudgery of being useful.")
On August 14 2012 02:52 aksfjh wrote: Natural resources virtually DO fall from the sky. Prices reflect the rate at which they fall. Prices also reflect the capacity of production. Being able to produce more from less, whether it's less time, raw materials, or investment, increases the availability of that product to society.
Capitalism is obviously not promoting efficient use of resources.
Keep in mind one of our most important resources is wiggle room in the carbon cycle, which we a) don't price and b) are basically out of.
You enjoying your life or getting an education doesn't necessarily equate a good investment either (in the name of capitalism). You'd have to put that life experience or education to work.
This is the problem with capitalism. Its priorities are upside down.
You should work in order to have life experiences and education. Not the other way around.
This is why putting forth capital for investments is almost always a good idea. It's very hard to invest in materials and personnel without somehow increasing the production capacity of society. The debate should be centered around what investment does the most, and if it could be better invested when in the hands of other individuals/groups.
But what if you are increasing production capacity for something useless, or outright detrimental?
Will try to avoid getting too deep into economics again in this thread since it's not really an economic thread. However, I'd say that by your definitions of success and waste, profitable businesses can actually be worse than failed businesses. A business that is profitable, but making profits in such a way that it hurts the environment would be worse than one that fails and can only hurt the environment for a short period of time.
So it's really not a matter of success or failure, it's what they do with the business that would determine if it's good for the overall society... which is different from what is good for the economy.
I don't think you think you're disagreeing with me, but I just want to say: yes, I agree. Many things that are very profitable are very detrimental to society. Incentives to do things are not in line with the social value of doing things; often, they are in fact opposed.
On August 14 2012 08:19 farvacola wrote: This is my sentiment almost to a T, I am genuinely excited to see what Obama can do with another 4 years. And I am personally predicting some democratic house and senate election wins that may very well signal a stark change in national governance. The thought of a harmonious relationship between the legislative and executive branches makes me giddy.
The Democrats may see some gains in the House this year, but keep in mind that with the new congressional maps, the median congressional district should have a Partisan Voter Index of nearly R+3. What that basically translates into is that in an election like 2008, the parties would split the House of Representatives evenly.
This is why it's really, really bad if you get demolished in an election right before a new redistricting. (ie 2010)
It goes without saying that this election is not going to be like 2008 in terms of voter turnout and voter composition. It is going to be a lot more like 2010. In fact, picking Paul Ryan all but guarantees Romney huge support and turnout from the Tea Party which is exactly what democrats don't want to see.
Though it has been said before, I'll just remind everyone that I am expecting a sizable Romney victory (absent a major economic turnaround), and see no reason to change that prediction now.
On August 14 2012 08:19 farvacola wrote: This is my sentiment almost to a T, I am genuinely excited to see what Obama can do with another 4 years. And I am personally predicting some democratic house and senate election wins that may very well signal a stark change in national governance. The thought of a harmonious relationship between the legislative and executive branches makes me giddy.
The Democrats may see some gains in the House this year, but keep in mind that with the new congressional maps, the median congressional district should have a Partisan Voter Index of nearly R+3. What that basically translates into is that in an election like 2008, the parties would split the House of Representatives evenly.
This is why it's really, really bad if you get demolished in an election right before a new redistricting. (ie 2010)
It goes without saying that this election is not going to be like 2008 in terms of voter turnout and voter composition. It is going to be a lot more like 2010. In fact, picking Paul Ryan all but guarantees Romney huge support and turnout from the Tea Party which is exactly what democrats don't want to see.
Though it has been said before, I'll just remind everyone that I am expecting a sizable Romney victory (absent a major economic turnaround), and see no reason to change that prediction now.
A Romney victory would ensure a shitty economy, where the rich get richer and everyone else doesn't.
I believe Obama will win narrowly, because if Romney wins the US is headed right down the shoot
On August 14 2012 09:12 Signet wrote: The Democrats may see some gains in the House this year, but keep in mind that with the new congressional maps, the median congressional district should have a Partisan Voter Index of nearly R+3. What that basically translates into is that in an election like 2008, the parties would split the House of Representatives evenly.
This is why it's really, really bad if you get demolished in an election right before a new redistricting. (ie 2010)
It goes without saying that this election is not going to be like 2008 in terms of voter turnout and voter composition. It is going to be a lot more like 2010. In fact, picking Paul Ryan all but guarantees Romney huge support and turnout from the Tea Party which is exactly what democrats don't want to see.
Though it has been said before, I'll just remind everyone that I am expecting a sizable Romney victory (absent a major economic turnaround), and see no reason to change that prediction now.
Yes, I'm just pointing out how bad the new maps are for the Democrats. I don't think they have much of a chance to win back the House until 2022 at the earliest.
On August 14 2012 08:19 farvacola wrote: This is my sentiment almost to a T, I am genuinely excited to see what Obama can do with another 4 years. And I am personally predicting some democratic house and senate election wins that may very well signal a stark change in national governance. The thought of a harmonious relationship between the legislative and executive branches makes me giddy.
The Democrats may see some gains in the House this year, but keep in mind that with the new congressional maps, the median congressional district should have a Partisan Voter Index of nearly R+3. What that basically translates into is that in an election like 2008, the parties would split the House of Representatives evenly.
This is why it's really, really bad if you get demolished in an election right before a new redistricting. (ie 2010)
Don't I know it. I had the unfortunate pleasure of having to choose between Dennis Kucinich and Marcy Kaptur in the newly reformed Ohio 9th District primary; the Republicans gerrymandered in the state of Ohio with ruthless efficacy, but in the end it only added to the negative image of the party within the state. John Boehner is very unpopular and issue-wise the state is showing signs of heavy Democratic leanings. The same can be said of Michigan; Rick Snyder has garbage approval ratings and there has been a strong showing of Democratic leadership on a local level these past few years (I'm thinking Hopewell in Kalamazoo and Bernero in Lansing). Wisconsin is proving to be the exception to the rule, and even there Democrats are picking up ground. And now, with Ryan as VP, I think the ramifications of his voucher replacement for Medicare can serve as a focal point for a Democratic critique of ad-hoc safety net disassembly, something taking place in many states (not to mention the mobilization of the AARP). We are looking at an exciting election in any case, with potential upsets possible at every turn.
On August 14 2012 09:12 Signet wrote: The Democrats may see some gains in the House this year, but keep in mind that with the new congressional maps, the median congressional district should have a Partisan Voter Index of nearly R+3. What that basically translates into is that in an election like 2008, the parties would split the House of Representatives evenly.
This is why it's really, really bad if you get demolished in an election right before a new redistricting. (ie 2010)
It goes without saying that this election is not going to be like 2008 in terms of voter turnout and voter composition. It is going to be a lot more like 2010. In fact, picking Paul Ryan all but guarantees Romney huge support and turnout from the Tea Party which is exactly what democrats don't want to see.
Though it has been said before, I'll just remind everyone that I am expecting a sizable Romney victory (absent a major economic turnaround), and see no reason to change that prediction now.
Yes, I'm just pointing out how bad the new maps are for the Democrats. I don't think they have much of a chance to win back the House until 2022 at the earliest.
Given the demographic trends in many areas, I think the gerrymandering of the Republicans this year won't help them keep their advantage that long. They can try and make it so the districts NOW are in their favor, but they can't stop the more liberal-leaning people who move into the district or a new generation of voters with different ideas. Not to sound like I'm wearing a tinfoil hat, but on the other hand I guess the cuts to education and laws mandating the general dumbing down of the education system could be viewed as a form of "brainwashing" towards conservatism.
I'm expecting a narrow Obama victory, more or less in line with most polls.
I haven't really been following the election. Has one of the candidates said that they will turn the government's focus on defense, NASA and infrastructure?
EPT
