|
|
On April 20 2012 02:04 storkfan wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2012 01:58 paralleluniverse wrote: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:
[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. 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.
Not only have you dodged half of the previous post, you've dodged half of this post too.
And if you've made a profit, that's because another person has spent money, which is a loss. Profit and loss for an economy is a pointless measure, which is why no economist uses it.
They use GDP instead, because it measures production. And products are what increases utility and social well-being.
I suggest you get a economics education before talking about a technical subject for which you have a simple-minded and erroneous understanding of.
|
On April 20 2012 02:07 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +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?
Because half his party doesn't like him. Just assume that's the crazy half, then it becomes more appealing to vote for the guy.
|
Neither. Any differences you see between these two are purely superficial insofar as electing one over the other contributing to any sort of major changes in the current state of affairs.
I'mma do a write in.
|
On April 20 2012 02:11 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2012 02:04 storkfan wrote:On April 20 2012 01:58 paralleluniverse wrote: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:
[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. 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. Not only have you dodged half of the previous post, you've dodged half of this post too. And if you've made a profit, that's because another person has spent money, which is a loss. Profit and loss for an economy is a pointless measure, which is why no economist uses it. They use GDP instead, because it measures production. And products are what increases utility and social well-being. I suggest you get a economics education before talking about a technical subject for which you have a simple-minded and erroneous understanding of. Wait, i just showed how GDP can be an erroneus numeric, now you are dodging it! I ignored the rest of your post becaues it assumed the strict validity of GDP as an economic indicator, which as i showed is not true: GDP can be increased by unproductive borrowing and spending.
|
Obama has done nothing for four years except for kill a few terrorists. Will Mitt be better? Probably not, but its worth the chance
|
On April 20 2012 02:08 storkfan wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2012 01:59 paralleluniverse wrote: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:
[quote]
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.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!
Source? Again you have none.
Keep up the doomsday prophecy about hyperinflation. It'll just make you look stupid because it's never happened and it's never going to happen.
Quantitative easing is not new. The Fed understands it and wouldn't have done it if it couldn't control inflation. But the Fed can control inflation which is why they have no fear of hyperinflation. Inflation is at 2%.
Quantitative easing is not new. Japan did it successfully with no inflation there.
|
On April 20 2012 02:15 Kimaker wrote:
Neither. Any differences you see between these two are purely superficial insofar as electing one over the other contributing to any sort of major changes in the current state of affairs.
I'mma do a write in.
I'm sure your write in will cause a wave of change as well!
If you want to make changes, vote in all your local, state, and national elections. I'm willing to bet that Romney would not be running for President today if he were never governor.
|
On April 20 2012 02:07 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +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?
You shouldn't.
I'm a Republican and I am going to vote for Obama. Romney is wildly out of touch with the average person and throughout is career he has tried to remedy by saying whatever the crowd wants to hear. As for the guy who says Obama is going to burn this nation down - that kind of talk is why politics is such a mess. Republicans cannot afford to compromise with Obama or they'll be called socialists/nazis or whatever silly term is in session. Now if there was a better Republican that took the nomination then I would probably vote for him/her, but as it stands I know what I am getting with Obama and I know that he will in the very least be able to compromise with Republicans.
|
On April 20 2012 02:18 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2012 02:08 storkfan wrote:On April 20 2012 01:59 paralleluniverse wrote: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: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! Source? Again you have none. Keep up the doomsday prophecy about hyperinflation. It'll just make you look stupid because it's never happened and it's never going to happen. Quantitative easing is not new. The Fed understands it and wouldn't have done it if it couldn't control inflation. But the Fed can control inflation which is why they have no fear of hyperinflation. Inflation is at 2%. Quantitative easing is not new. Japan did it successfully with no inflation there. Ok, you hold your govt bonds, ill hold my goddamn gold. But remember, if you hold a hot potato for too long, your hands will get burned!
|
On April 20 2012 02:11 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2012 02:04 storkfan wrote:On April 20 2012 01:58 paralleluniverse wrote: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:
[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. 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. Not only have you dodged half of the previous post, you've dodged half of this post too. And if you've made a profit, that's because another person has spent money, which is a loss. Profit and loss for an economy is a pointless measure, which is why no economist uses it. They use GDP instead, because it measures production. And products are what increases utility and social well-being. I suggest you get a economics education before talking about a technical subject for which you have a simple-minded and erroneous understanding of.
GDP can grow because of inflation. It does not reflect social being and utility. It is what it is. Having high priced goods and services does make you "richer" on paper but it does not reflect the actual well-being of the people.
|
If Obama wins this, America is going to be in so much trouble ><
|
On April 20 2012 02:17 storkfan wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2012 02:11 paralleluniverse wrote:On April 20 2012 02:04 storkfan wrote:On April 20 2012 01:58 paralleluniverse wrote: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:
[quote]
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. Not only have you dodged half of the previous post, you've dodged half of this post too. And if you've made a profit, that's because another person has spent money, which is a loss. Profit and loss for an economy is a pointless measure, which is why no economist uses it. They use GDP instead, because it measures production. And products are what increases utility and social well-being. I suggest you get a economics education before talking about a technical subject for which you have a simple-minded and erroneous understanding of. Wait, i just showed how GDP can be an erroneus numeric, now you are dodging it! I ignored the rest of your post becaues it assumed the strict validity of GDP as an economic indicator, which as i showed is not true: GDP can be increased by unproductive borrowing and spending.
I've shown why profit and loss is stupid for an economy, because every profit is someone else's loss.
And I've further shown why GDP is used. Because products are what people use and want, products like computers, food, etc, are what increases utility and social well-being. Do you really think economists all use GDP because of... stupidity? Lack of creativity? Because you're unsophisticated thinking shows you're smarter than these academics?
My other points have nothing to do with growth, it was about unemployment being a waste of human capital. If people sitting on their asses doing nothing isn't a waste, I don't know what is.
|
Depends if Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson can once again convince enough black people to vote for Obama because he is indeed black. Look at the numbers, an astronomical amount of blacks voted in 2008 compared to previous elections.
If Romney picks up Marco Rubio for VP he'll have a good shot.
|
To think anyone would vote for Obama blows my mind the biggest train wreck of a president ever. More national debt than every president till Clinton combined, doubling it in half the time as Bush's shitty presidency and his isn't over(we all know that's why the Europeans like him), and 15%+ jobless rate with the rate of unemployed black teens through 20s hovering in the 40-50% range I don't know who looks at this guy and says ya mhhmm I'll take some more. Just vote for anyone but him for gods sake I don't care if you write in your dog because you know what he'd be a better president by doing nothing at all.
Sure Romney isn't the best option but he is way more experienced and qualified in every way. The only reason Obama even has a shot is because no media is willing to call him out on anything EVER.
On the VP thing though I'd like to see Alan West or Ran Paul both great choices really smart guys but he'll probably end up picking Christy or Rubio
On April 20 2012 02:23 Noro wrote:
If Obama wins this, America is going to be in so much trouble ><
Can't wait to get that oil from you guys will help so much! I <3 Canada.
Oh wait.
|
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. 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.
Well, the problem is you assume they are doing something useful. Simply putting people back to work isn't necessarily, as they may not produce any/much value to society. That is unless you're asking Joseph Stiglitz, who is on tape saying stimilus is good even if it's about digging a hole and filling it back in. That argument just boggles my mind.
So, was the stimilus useful in the sense that it created value? That's where we didn't have profit/loss mechanism to answer the question. And CBAs for the projects were hardly made. Stimilus isn't a free lunch and it's possible it helpsed the distortions which put our economy in the recession in the first place, not allowing it to adjust the misallocated capital.
I know Christina Romer is a very well respected economist so I will read the paper with great interest when I get the time, but I will refrain from making conclusions based on that one paper alone.
|
On April 20 2012 01:46 Klondikebar 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. Bush did more for socialism than Obama has ever done.
Real? Which major private companies did Bush take over?
Also arguing with Keynesian economists is funny. Of course the stimulus helped! We can't tell you by how much or anything, but we know it had to have! Keynesians validating Keynesian principals? Who would have thought...
|
On April 20 2012 02:22 scaban84 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2012 02:11 paralleluniverse wrote:On April 20 2012 02:04 storkfan wrote:On April 20 2012 01:58 paralleluniverse wrote: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:
[quote]
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. Not only have you dodged half of the previous post, you've dodged half of this post too. And if you've made a profit, that's because another person has spent money, which is a loss. Profit and loss for an economy is a pointless measure, which is why no economist uses it. They use GDP instead, because it measures production. And products are what increases utility and social well-being. I suggest you get a economics education before talking about a technical subject for which you have a simple-minded and erroneous understanding of. GDP can grow because of inflation. It does not reflect social being and utility. It is what it is. Having high priced goods and services does make you "richer" on paper but it does not reflect the actual well-being of the people.
You don't understand GDP, do you?
|
Kind of an unexpected surprise to see Obama so much in the lead , although there will probably some non-us members that will have voted for him, but still a good sign!
Not all hope is lost for Americans 
|
On April 20 2012 01:01 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2012 00:56 liberal wrote:On April 20 2012 00:52 Biff The Understudy wrote:On April 20 2012 00:45 KwarK wrote:On April 20 2012 00:24 scaban84 wrote:
Yes in Europe "Liberal" and "Conservative" having different meanings than in the US.
When I lived in Europe there was much less diversity of thought, everyone agreed on role of government. They don't seem to understand the US's struggle for independence and our drive to be different than Europe, Europeans disagree on trivial matters whereas we still debate the "big" questions. Conservative to us is having economic liberty and small government, because it has been the norm for such a long time (not so much anymore). In Europe that is a radically new or "liberal" idea. Everything about this post is so incredibly wrong that it's all hilarious. Do you genuinely think the debate you're having over the role of government is radical and new? I'll tell you why the rest of Europe doesn't argue so much about that stuff. It's because we did our arguing about it decades ago and arrived upon a consensus which we were all reasonably happy with. America isn't pushing new grounds and it hasn't been since the Revolutionary era. Since then it has been reactionary and primitive, a fledgling nation trying to define itself in a much older world. Europeans disagree on trivial matters?!?! Abortion is apparently a huge debate in America. Flag burning too. Gays in the military. These are not big or complicated questions, they're questions that the rest of the world doesn't begin to care about because they're so incredibly simple and childish. The foundation myth that Americans buy into where they're cutting new ground and pushing new frontiers for human freedom and expression is really quite laughable. The entire history of the 20th Century was the rest of the civilised world arguing over the role of government with relation to economic liberty from the great depression on to the postwar European social democratic consensus in Western Europe and the Soviet bloc in the East. Do you honestly believe that the petty debates between American ideologues have any relevance to the understanding of these questions for a European? What is ironic is that Republican's (and even more the "libertarians") position on the role of government is basically the one of classical liberal economy, that people here consider as outdated since basically a century. Funny that this can be sold as "new" and "modern" while it's the most reactionary political ideas we have ever had. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism Some of classical liberalism is outdated, but most of it forms the foundation for everything both the left and right believe in and agree with. Do you really think the notions of rule of law, due process, freedom of speech, press, and assembly, and a constitutionally restricted government are at all outdated? Of course not. I'm saying there have been many things we have learnt and change since its introduction (need for regulation, end of the blind faith in the "invisible hand", need for social protection etc...), and that the very "modern" neoliberal theories are just basically reactionary. Liberalism was a reaction to monarchist absolutism. It was a progress. Now it's a reaction to social democracy. It's a regression. Social democracy is an improved liberalism is many aspect since it keeps its great aspects that you mentionned. Which is wwhy I talked about "classical liberalism". We are all liberal in a certain extent.
Social democracy isn't an improved liberalism.
Classical Liberalism, and today's libertarianism holds personal freedom as the ultimate good, the right to make your own decisions and taking responsibility for those consequences, while maintaining a body that will protect sovereignty, property rights, contracts, and these personal freedoms.
Social democracy is willing to sacrifice personal freedoms in favor of state power for other purposes, because personal freedoms are not the "ultimate good." Social democracy moves closer to communism, where the ultimate good is equality.
|
On April 20 2012 02:22 storkfan wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2012 02:18 paralleluniverse wrote:On April 20 2012 02:08 storkfan wrote:On April 20 2012 01:59 paralleluniverse wrote: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:
[quote]
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! Source? Again you have none. Keep up the doomsday prophecy about hyperinflation. It'll just make you look stupid because it's never happened and it's never going to happen. Quantitative easing is not new. The Fed understands it and wouldn't have done it if it couldn't control inflation. But the Fed can control inflation which is why they have no fear of hyperinflation. Inflation is at 2%. Quantitative easing is not new. Japan did it successfully with no inflation there. Ok, you hold your govt bonds, ill hold my goddamn gold. But remember, if you hold a hot potato for too long, your hands will get burned!
How does it feel to be continually debunked by the reality of low inflation to the point where you have no argument left, but only a rhetorical bet?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
