EPTedit: and i'm not sure what jibba's saying about bush either, except that the motherfucker's economic policies is why the most i'll ever get paid is $50k a year, if i'm lucky.
The Goddamn Economy: A Civilized Version - Page 10
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
ahrara_
Afghanistan1715 Posts
edit: and i'm not sure what jibba's saying about bush either, except that the motherfucker's economic policies is why the most i'll ever get paid is $50k a year, if i'm lucky. | ||
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
On October 06 2008 09:21 HeadBangaa wrote: What is the order of business that Bush has afforded your craft? Passionate teaching? Serious question. My roommate just got his BA in poli sci, and he's saying that you can't do shit with it except teach, because getting in on campaigns is too competitive or something. Obama actually started hiring like crazy over the summer and I guess the feeling is that those positions were also going to lead into staff hiring. I was only an intern so I'm not sure. I should've clarified what I meant more. Yeah, right now is a terrible time to hold just a BA but that's true for a lot of different fields. Grad school is probably the next step for a lot of people, but I don't think it would be that difficult to find a staff position somewhere in civil service. They replace a shit ton of people everytime a new president takes office and I think a lot of the baby boomers are getting ready to retire. Iraq always needs more rebuilders. :x | ||
|
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
On October 06 2008 09:29 ahrara_ wrote: finding campaign work/community organizing jobs is impossible, not unless you want to get paid. i've friends who work practically full time for the Obama campaign doing state-level coordinating and don't get a cent. all summer i slaved my ass off for an unnamed congresswoman and all i got was a tshirt and deep psychological scars that won't leave me until i die and that makeup the substance of my nightmares. anyway no one gets a PS degree for the JOB OPPORTUNITIES lololol... just something I want to study. most PS grads go on to law school, or for those of us who aren't concerned about money or throwing themselves head first into a dying industry... JOURNALISM! edit: and i'm not sure what jibba's saying about bush either, except that the motherfucker's economic policies is why the most i'll ever get paid is $50k a year, if i'm lucky. http://careers.state.gov/officer/register.html | ||
|
ahrara_
Afghanistan1715 Posts
tbh i never did much research into PS job opportunities. what else do poli sci students do? Obama actually started hiring like crazy over the summer and I guess the feeling is that those positions were also going to lead into staff hiring. I was only an intern so I'm not sure. I think you're way exaggerating the hiring. The Obama campaign has thousands of volunteers who'd love to have a paid position. Maybe 0.1% of them will get one, probably less. Paid field work is impossible to come by unless you've been working as an organizer for a long time. Almost all important positions are hired through word of mouth. | ||
|
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
| ||
|
babypo0
Korea (South)66 Posts
deregulation can only thrive if we get rid of the corrupt organizations along with it. deregulation implies free markets, but as long as the fed dominates the money supply and prints like a Gutenberg knowing his press will be burned by the catholic church at sundown. i'm surprised at how many people i talk to support regulation over deregulation and interventional market over freemarket. a constant point they all bring up is freemarkets don't work and corruption will abound and monopolies will rise without it. yet the ironic thing is that those creating regulations are also the ones in league with the FED which manipulates the market and prevents true free markets. and people say free markets don't work. as if we have a free market . theyre' like T cells that recognize healthy cells as harmful particles, adn then call in the harmful particles to solve the problem. accurate picture of hte players and the problems is crucial. there are plenty of facts about the fed, how they contracted the money supply by 1/3 CAUSING the 1929 depression, he value of the dollar , the methods and tools they use... despite the censorship and media un-coverage. before being quick to dismiss unfamiliar accusations, think, "we've had these guys in forever, and the problems only get worse. should we keep them or change to sound money?" | ||
|
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
| ||
|
Choros
Australia530 Posts
The problem is the real economy. Over the course of decades the real wages of lower and middle income earners has fallen, reaching its peak by some measures in the 1970's, the minimum wage peaked in the mid 1970's for example. Over the slow progression of decades the real wages of these individuals has continued to slide. This has led to increasing levels of debt as people use borrowings to make up the difference between real income and required expenses. In my opinion this idea that the lower and middle income earners spending too much is a myth disguising the fact that insufficient wages are the real problem. Given this it is no coincidence that the part of the financial market to go down first was that part which lends to the poor. If the poor were growing richer they would have met their mortgage payments and this situation would never have arisen to begin with. Poor financial market regulations don't help but this is not where the problem really lies. Whats more the Bush administration has followed a small government, free market approach and this has made the problem far far worse. Before anyone says how can you say he followed a small government approach when he has increased spending and increased the deficit significantly I will explain. The Bush administration has cut spending on health care education social security, then poured money into defense and tax cuts to the rich. This is exactly what a small government approach will do (except not by definition spending on defense) and McCain is promising to cut spending on services even more. The Bush administration has been firing public sector workers by the tens of thousands. Clearly this is bad news for a contracting economy. Thus you have the double wammy going. On the one hand contracting wages for the majority of the populace reduces demand. On the other the government is reducing spending in the economy contracting demand even further. The inevitable consequence of a contractionary effort on this scale is absolutely catastrophic and defies out comprehension. So long as the economy continues to contract more people will be defaulting on their mortgages and will continue to reduce their consumption. This will put continued downward pressure on the stock markets and on the banks. The bailout does nothing to fix the real problem but it does dramatically undermine the capacity of the government to actually do something which will. People often say that the bailout is bad but it is better than doing nothing, they basically believe that either you do this or you do nothing. Why doesn't anyone suggest a third option. If I was running the show i would use that money to create jobs by the hundreds of thousands, killing two birds with one stone in the process. Hire more teachers, stimulate the economy and help fix the education system. Do this same thing across the board and the economic situation will quickly improve but if the policies that are currently in place remain so the situation can only deteriorate further. McCain promises policies which will be disastrous. Obama advocates doing basically the same thing I do the worry is ether it will be too late, and of course whether he will actually get elected at all. | ||
|
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
What's left besides wait and see? | ||
|
fight_or_flight
United States3988 Posts
http://finance.yahoo.com/ There are rumors that on monday our stock market will go way down, and tuesday will be a bank holiday...I hope its not true. This week could be crazy. | ||
|
ahrara_
Afghanistan1715 Posts
2.) The problem is that even as you're fixing bank's balance sheet, the fed won't put enough equity back into banks, and banks refuse to lend to each other, which is another root of the problem. To fix this, the fed must cut the discount rate, which is probably going to happen soon. | ||
|
fight_or_flight
United States3988 Posts
On October 06 2008 15:47 ahrara_ wrote: 1.) The plan hasn't been put into effect yet. How hard is this for people to understand? Reddit and digg have been stroking themselves all day over exactly what you're saying but goddammit it's that simple. 2.) The problem is that even as you're fixing bank's balance sheet, the fed won't put enough equity back into banks, and banks refuse to lend to each other, which is another root of the problem. To fix this, the fed must cut the discount rate, which is probably going to happen soon. Unfortunately, the $700 billion can't actually cover everything. There is like a $5 trillion shortfall. The whole point is to increase confidence, not actually provide the raw cash to fix everything. If its not helping confidence, then when they actually do pay out it won't do much. | ||
|
ahrara_
Afghanistan1715 Posts
| ||
|
fight_or_flight
United States3988 Posts
On October 06 2008 16:03 ahrara_ wrote: There are two elements to rebuilding confidence was my point. The discount rate must follow. What's the point of knowing that months from now, your banks could finally take these bad assets off their hands when right now they have to pay an obscene premium for an overnight loan? Well, there is another factor too. Did you notice that leading up to the bailout bill, the market was up a couple hundred points, then after it was passed, it just kept falling like a rock until the markets closed? Who's to say that monday morning it won't just keep going? Thats all I'm saying. Maybe the market doesn't like this bill. Maybe it was pushed through to bailout foreign investors, and thats the reason. We'll have to wait and see. | ||
|
ahrara_
Afghanistan1715 Posts
On October 06 2008 13:03 Choros wrote: In my opinion the sub prime crisis and all this financial market turmoil which has followed is a symptom of the problem, it is not the cause it self. As the press and many people seem to believe. The problem is the real economy. Over the course of decades the real wages of lower and middle income earners has fallen, reaching its peak by some measures in the 1970's, the minimum wage peaked in the mid 1970's for example. Over the slow progression of decades the real wages of these individuals has continued to slide. This has led to increasing levels of debt as people use borrowings to make up the difference between real income and required expenses. In my opinion this idea that the lower and middle income earners spending too much is a myth disguising the fact that insufficient wages are the real problem. Given this it is no coincidence that the part of the financial market to go down first was that part which lends to the poor. If the poor were growing richer they would have met their mortgage payments and this situation would never have arisen to begin with. Poor financial market regulations don't help but this is not where the problem really lies. Whats more the Bush administration has followed a small government, free market approach and this has made the problem far far worse. Before anyone says how can you say he followed a small government approach when he has increased spending and increased the deficit significantly I will explain. The Bush administration has cut spending on health care education social security, then poured money into defense and tax cuts to the rich. This is exactly what a small government approach will do (except not by definition spending on defense) and McCain is promising to cut spending on services even more. The Bush administration has been firing public sector workers by the tens of thousands. Clearly this is bad news for a contracting economy. Thus you have the double wammy going. On the one hand contracting wages for the majority of the populace reduces demand. On the other the government is reducing spending in the economy contracting demand even further. The inevitable consequence of a contractionary effort on this scale is absolutely catastrophic and defies out comprehension. So long as the economy continues to contract more people will be defaulting on their mortgages and will continue to reduce their consumption. This will put continued downward pressure on the stock markets and on the banks. The bailout does nothing to fix the real problem but it does dramatically undermine the capacity of the government to actually do something which will. People often say that the bailout is bad but it is better than doing nothing, they basically believe that either you do this or you do nothing. Why doesn't anyone suggest a third option. If I was running the show i would use that money to create jobs by the hundreds of thousands, killing two birds with one stone in the process. Hire more teachers, stimulate the economy and help fix the education system. Do this same thing across the board and the economic situation will quickly improve but if the policies that are currently in place remain so the situation can only deteriorate further. McCain promises policies which will be disastrous. Obama advocates doing basically the same thing I do the worry is ether it will be too late, and of course whether he will actually get elected at all. Unbelievable. An economics major that doesn't understand that full employment != full production. | ||
|
Choros
Australia530 Posts
On October 06 2008 16:23 ahrara_ wrote: Unbelievable. An economics major that doesn't understand that full employment != full production. LoL what does that have to do with anything? If increasing the level of production is your objective, which ultimately it is to deal with a recession, then an expansionary fiscal policy will lower the unemployment rate and increase the levels of output, this is exactly what i argue for. This has been done before and is a proven method of economic stimulus and the fiscal stimulus package actually goes a way toward achieving this although not enough. The United States is nowhere near its production capacity at the moment. These supply side economics advocates say we need to increase investment by cutting taxes to the rich and this will create jobs. This will not happen. Increasing levels of investment increases capacity but it does not in its own right increase the levels of production. Supply equates to Demand, you increase demand you increase the quantity supplied. This is how to increase employment and fix the economy. Before anyone says the economy isnt in recession I will provide my explanation for the confusing economic statistics we have been seeing of late. If your in recession then the amount people buys decreases, thus the levels of stock increase and the quantity of imports falls, both of these things are a positive to your GDP statistics and both of these factors have had a massive impact in making the GDP growth statistics look alot better than they actually are. The unemployment rate in the United States is increasing at the fastest rate in 20 years, a prominent American economist summed it up well when he commented after the unemployment data was released when he said "well that settles it there cannot be any doubt now we are in a recession." | ||
|
ahrara_
Afghanistan1715 Posts
It is also about as proven a method of economic stimulus as acupuncture is a proven method of physical healing. Step out of your theoretical mindset and compare the options really quickly: If you create public sector jobs here's what happens: 1.) This crowds out the private sector, making the costs of production higher. 2.) This money takes a while to trickle up, not to mention the time it takes to establish these projects and do the hiring. 3.) This does not fix the credit problem. Does not solve the fundamental problem of market confidence. Consumers will be less likely to save or invest when a.) they have to pay back debt b.) they have little confidence themselves 4.) "Job creation" is an extremely inefficient way of stimulating demand. I think this is self-explanatory. Seriously your credentials are consistently inconsistent with the quality of your ideas. It's like you're copying and pasting out of a textbook. The market fundamentalists in this thread have consistently had more sophisticated reasoning than you. Well, there is another factor too. Did you notice that leading up to the bailout bill, the market was up a couple hundred points, then after it was passed, it just kept falling like a rock until the markets closed? Who's to say that monday morning it won't just keep going? Thats all I'm saying. Maybe the market doesn't like this bill. Maybe it was pushed through to bailout foreign investors, and thats the reason. We'll have to wait and see. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/04/business/04markets.html it's a simple question of looking ahead to all the other problems that the bailout is not immediately fixing, most of which have to do with tight credit. the unemployment survey sure didn't help. | ||
|
Choros
Australia530 Posts
On October 06 2008 17:14 ahrara_ wrote: Yes I apologize for my flippant response. I am well aware that you are appealing to Keynes here and that you think short term infrastructure and "job creation" investment will save us from economic hell. It is also about as proven a method of economic stimulus as acupuncture is a proven method of physical healing. Step out of your theoretical mindset and compare the options really quickly: If you create public sector jobs here's what happens: 1.) This crowds out the private sector, making the costs of production higher. 2.) This money takes a while to trickle up, not to mention the time it takes to establish these projects and do the hiring. 3.) This does not fix the credit problem. Does not solve the fundamental problem of market confidence. Consumers will be less likely to save or invest when a.) they have to pay back debt b.) they have little confidence themselves 4.) "Job creation" is an extremely inefficient way of stimulating demand. I think this is self-explanatory. Seriously your credentials are consistently inconsistent with the quality of your ideas. It's like you're copying and pasting out of a textbook. The market fundamentalists in this thread have consistently had more sophisticated reasoning than you. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/04/business/04markets.html it's a simple question of looking ahead to all the other problems that the bailout is not immediately fixing, most of which have to do with tight credit. the unemployment survey sure didn't help. 1) Where is the evidence of this? Every single decent economy on the planet was essentially created in the public sector. This is a big statement to make so i will provide examples (and there are probably extremely limited examples which would disagree with this.) Japan underwent a massive government investment program in the late 1800's to early 1900's which created incredible economic success for the public and private sector. South Korea and Taiwan both underwent public sector economic stimulus policies across a broad spectrum to create infrastructure and jobs as well as stimulate production of commodities and heavy manufacturing. The same is true for European economies as well as the United States itself. A strong public sector leads in turn to a strong private sector as it generates higher levels of demand and infrastructure. The growth in China today is also a direct result of this. The government spends hundreds of billions on infrastructure which establishes the environment in which the private sector can flourish. I find it frustrating that something which is essentially an empircial fact is controversial. 2) I do not think it takes very long for it to trickle up but even if it does so what? You hire a new teacher and a week later that money in being spend on groceries and movie tickets etc. Each dollar the government places in the economy starts a positive multiplies effect, that dollar counts as several dollars in the real economy and it goes straight into the private sector and into further job creation. It wont take long to get this money into the system at the moment because the system is already in place. 3) It will solve the stock market problem in my opinion because increasing the levels of employment will resuscitate the housing market which will boost up the banks, it will increase the levels of corporate revenues and in turn will put upward pressure on the stock market overall. Confidence? An economy showing genuine strength will boost confidence far more than mere words ever will. Sure the market went up when they announced the package, its like saying to a junkie 'ill give you more heroin tomorrow' of course they will be pleased....in the short term. The only way to put long term upward pressure on the stock market is to create genuine economic strength at the basic level. The bailout does nothing to achieve this. 4) I'm not talking about job creation to stimulate demand, i'm talking about stimulating demand to create job creation. Increase the wages to teachers, bam money in the economy over night. The same is true for increasing welfare etc. I do talk about increasing employment in the public sector as well this is required to solve the long run problem. It is fundamentally a long run problem which caused all this. I believe it has been in the cooking for decades, but in the past the economy has started to go under and lowering interest rates has been able to stimulate demand and create the illusion that stuffs alright but the long run problem remains. The United States has gotten to the point where short run lowering of interest rates wont be able to fix the problem this time. Sounds like i'm talking out of a text book? Well im not, in fact all the text books i read effectively assume that what is happening now is an impossibility and this is crippling effective policy responses. I'm talking about Keynesian economic your quite right. In my opinion this is appropriate under the current circumstances. I believe that the rejection of Keynesian economics is an absolute tragedy. It was basically because Keynes and Friedman were rivals, and Friedman was in his shadow, then he got his way and he set about destroying Keynesian economics outright and was quite successful at doing this. | ||
|
fight_or_flight
United States3988 Posts
Last night Germany followed Britain by guaranteeing German firms. This is breaking up the unification of the EU...but now you see why they did it. "every country for itself" http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article4888286.ece Europe has 73% more mortgage exposure than the US does. http://www.moneyweek.com/news-and-charts/economics/why-europe-could-be-the-credit-crunchs-next-victim-13758.aspx# | ||
|
ahrara_
Afghanistan1715 Posts
edit: 1.) guaranteeing bank deposits is completely different from guaranteeing firms? the reason this escalating competition is happening is because otherwise it would drive deposits to places that have pumped up their deposit insurance. the deposit insurance is really meaningless because in every case of total bank failure, the central bank in the states and in europe has offered to cover every cent of every deposit. 2.) 73% as MUCH exposure as banks, not 73% more. -_-''' | ||
| ||
