scarykitties on 19/9/2012 at 21:11
Quote Posted by LarryG
You are aware that the (
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-federal-bailout-that-saved-mitt-romney-20120829) US government bailed out Bain Capitol at a net cost of over $10 million dollars to US Taxpayers. To me that makes Romney one of those lazy freeloaders who contribute nothing. He was a corporate raider who raped and pillaged failing corporations, not for the sake of the employees, not for the sake of the original entrepreneurs, not for the good of the nation, but for his own personal profits. And when he failed at that, he got the US government to bail him and his cronies out. The problem is, that when you are poor and need a hand up, he's against it, but when you are rich and need a hand up he's all for it. Um ...
Agreed, I'm against bailing out companies, whether it's Bain or GM or Solyndra. The whole point of the free market is that corporations should rise and fall on their own merit. It's just another example of government tampering with the system screwing it up.
And again, I'd point out that I don't particularly like Romney, but even though he was involved in Bain, was he involved at the time of the bail-outs and did he have any direct say in the matter?
My worry that is the government mistakes "a hand up" to poor people as putting them on a new, inefficient government-based subsidy of some kind. That's not necessarily born out of any specific examples, but more in a personal belief that governments are inefficient and stupid, so the less they touch, the better.
Quote Posted by Muzman
Hang on. How does Obamacare significantly affect investment outside of health sector stuff?
It doesn't, necessarily, but I said "things like Obamacare." That is, introducing big, sweeping legislature, which creates uncertainty and, as a result, slows investment. With slowed investment comes slowed growth.
Quote Posted by Muzman
And secondly that article is quite specific about the policies in question doing the damage, not "regulation and top-level economy-repairing policies".
But FDR did far more than just diminish antitrust regulation. He put forth lots of policies in the New Deal.
Quote Posted by Article
After scrutinizing Roosevelt's record for four years, Harold L. Cole and Lee E. Ohanian conclude in a new study that New Deal policies signed into law 71 years ago thwarted economic recovery for seven long years.
The New Deal included more than just antitrust legislation. My point is only that I don't believe that the government can pay and plan its way out of a deep economic slump. It takes economic growth in the private industry to bring the economy up again.
Quote Posted by Muzman
One of them is arguably de-regulatory by today's standards as it turned a blind eye to trusts and collusion.
Yeah, you're right on the lessened antitrust stuff. Though excessive regulation (
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=430OAJuh0nk) can hold back competition and hurt innovation.
But since you bought it up, I'd point out that Obamacare is encouraging (
http://www.medicalprogresstoday.com/2012/08/healthcare-consolidation-obamcare-bug-or-feature.php) consolidation in the healthcare industry.
I guess we're just at an impasse, then.
LarryG on 19/9/2012 at 21:26
Quote Posted by scarykitties
And again, I'd point out that I don't particularly like Romney, but even though he was involved in Bain, was he involved at the time of the bail-outs and did he have any direct say in the matter?
Yep. Hand over fist. Read the article.
Re. FDR
Quote Posted by scarykitties
I guess we're just at an impasse, then.
A friendly agreement to disagree on that subject.
scarykitties on 19/9/2012 at 21:54
Quote Posted by LarryG
Yep. Hand over fist. Read the article.
Fair enough, then. I guess I'll be voting Johnson (Libertarian) and not Republican, then.
Stitch on 19/9/2012 at 21:56
Quote Posted by scarykitties
Now's the time to work on paying off that huge debt, not to rack up more of it.
This is a good ol' common sense statement bandied about so much these days that it almost seems like it holds an ounce of truth, which of course it doesn't.
Basically, good economics goes like this: borrow and spend when you are in a recession to stimulate the economy, and then aggressively pay down debt when the economy is on solid ground.
As such, now is
not the time to pay off the debt, as the recovery is fragile at best and the money simply isn't there. Attempting to pay off the debt right now will actually hurt our economy, as it will essentially strangle the flow of cash at a time when we most need it.
Want to really flush the economy down the shitter? Give the keys to the party that aggressively tried to counter Obama's stimulus spending (which, by the way,
wasn't large enough).
Remember: the economy of a country isn't the same as the economy of a household. Saving up for a new Xbox is remarkably more simple than attempting to pull a country out of a severe recession.
LarryG on 19/9/2012 at 22:08
If only managing an country's economy were this simple.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]1222[/ATTACH]
Unfortunately, there is no one player who is keeping all the plates spinning. It's more like an organic network with everyone having a different idea about what to do and some players undermining what other players are doing
[ATTACH=CONFIG]1223[/ATTACH]
So blaming or crediting any President or Congress or Party or ... with what is happening in our modern economy is an oversimplification at best. It just ain't so anymore, if it ever was.
scarykitties on 19/9/2012 at 22:10
Well, whatever the case, I suppose we'll find out what works in the next four years. If Obama is reelected, he'll have four more years to fix things. If he fails, then that suggests that his ways weren't what was needed. If he loses and Romney wins but things stay just as bad or get worse, it's either a matter of the President really having no say or he just personally sucks. If Romney is elected and things get better, then his way apparently works.
In either case, I'm glad that in four years we'll be able to put this debate of government spending to end recession vs government not spending to end recession behind us, because however it goes, we'll have an answer by then. :)
I agree that one man can't personally move the entire economy, but one administration can put in place policies that help or hurt the movement of the economy. One man can't stop a river, but a handful can build a dam. That kind of thing.
LarryG on 19/9/2012 at 22:26
Unfortunately, even if we do find out what works this time, it will be forgotten by half or more by the next time it's needed. And, personally, I don't think there will ever be any consensus about what worked in this case. When things get better, everyone, on all sides, will claim credit, and while things are bad it's always the other guy's fault.
scarykitties on 19/9/2012 at 23:19
Quote Posted by LarryG
Unfortunately, even if we do find out what works this time, it will be forgotten by half or more by the next time it's needed. And, personally, I don't think there will ever be any consensus about what worked in this case. When things get better, everyone, on all sides, will claim credit, and while things are bad it's always the other guy's fault.
That's what makes politics and economics particularly frustrating for me. Theoretically, economics should be a clear-cut matter since it's a science, but it's not. It makes sense to me that government intervention doesn't work and only slows or stalls the natural self-corrected processes inherent in the free market. My education and articles that I've read support that.
I assume it's been exactly the same for you, but in reverse. You've believed that the government can use stimulus bills and the like to repair slumping or broken economies and you've probably had education and articles to back that up.
It would basically be a 10-20 year investment in very high mathematics and a lot of reading and education to find out which one of us is right, so until then, we have to take someone else's word for it, but there are reliable words on both sides. I hate that shit.
faetal on 20/9/2012 at 11:54
I'm really beginning to loathe this mindset which stigmatises the act of looking after your people. Free healthcare is a GOOD THING.
faetal on 20/9/2012 at 11:59
Quote Posted by DDL
(
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/09/full-transcript-george-stephanopoulos-and-mitt-romney/) Transcript!
It's about a third of the way down (depending on how your browser decides to format it, admittedly).
Apparently 75% of US households fall between 25k and 100k a year, so the outright "no" to 100k being middle seems....worrying.
(of course it's entirely possible that the upper bracket of the US earn SO FUCKING MUCH that the mean income is in the 200k range while the median is 50k, but I'd imagine the median to be the more voter-relevant value, here)
(plus to work out a mean income you'd need to actually get figures for that upper bracket, and they often seem reluctant to provide those :p)
This is why you don't use the mean, since it disregards people as data points.
