Obama!!!

Hey Pidz

It's gonna be interesting to see how everyone reacts to the 'cap & refund' approach he's taking to carbon issues etc. Think that's gonna be a big test for him - making energy more expensive and 'redistributing' wealth during a recession and that

__________________
Virtual Reality chatter on a movie site? Got endless amounts of it here. Reviews over here

So, let me get this straight: our deficit triples based on trillions of dollars of proposed spending and decreased economic growth, and your suggestion is we raise the tax rate to offset this? Why not, I dunno, NOT spend trillions of dollars on faux stimulus? Why not lower the tax rate to spur growth? We know it works; we've seen it work. And what's more, we've seen the opposite discourage growth and investment.

You're right, saving the economy isn't a one-man job, and I wish someone would tell our President that. We're the only ones who can save our economy, which means the less government gets in our way, tells us what to do, and pretends it knows how to do all this better than we do, the better.

By the by, I'm not sure I understand the thinking behind your concerns about China and India, because it would seem to be directly at odds with the actual fear: the fear is not that they'll buy up all our debt, but that they'll stop doing so because we're deemed to be a credit risk, which means we can't sell treasuries as easily, which means we can't always run deficits when necessary.

I've seen lower numbers concerning Obama's popularity, and I know they're down since he's taken office, but I wouldn't cite them in either direction at this point. There's a long way to go, and when you ask people about the specific things he's doing, the reception is lukewarm at best. It's only a matter of time before his actual actions supplant his rhetoric in the things people associate with him.

Economically, the policies being advanced are terrible. I don't think there's much room for debate about it, either. The only rational arguments are the ones that concede this point, but think they'll offset this with some greater, non-economic positive. But I've sadly concluded at this point that most of the people defending him aren't really paying a lot of attention the specifics of what he's proposing, or else have a fundamental misconception about economics.

You don't like any 'New Deal' style stimulating at all then? (What did Keynes do to you as a child? It must have been very traumatic )

The only rational arguments are the ones that agree with you? How grandiloquent! Obama would be proud

No but seriously, what sort of non-economic boons are being put forward? Surely they must be ones with tangental economic benefits, or why target them at such a time?

---

Over here we seem to have gone for: a 50 pence income tax hike for the super-rich; a bribe to get people to scrap their old cars; bailing out everyone who isn't Woolworths; ... and...um. Yeah, that's about it. I feel as ambivalent about our lot as i do about big O's big actions so far. Hey ho.

--EDIT--- Oh, nearly forgot the 2.5% drop in VAT. How could I could overlook that? This government is toast at the next election. And we'll have to eat Conservatives for breakfast again. *Sigh*

The New Deal actually raised the unemployment rate even further (I believe it doubled even years after implementation, if memory serves) and certainly prolonged the Great Depression, all done out of fear and ignorance. So no, can't say I much care for it. As for Keynes: leaving aside any childhood traumua, I think he's partially responsible for dragging out a relatively clear-cut economic debate for a couple generations longer than it had any business going on.

To be fair, conservatives who let people think they're supply-siders, but don't implement supply-side policies, have helped muddy the debate quite a bit. People still think of it in terms of party, which screws up the entire discussion.

Pfft. Technically speaking, this is true of just about everyone, or else our opinions would be different to begin with. And yes, there are some topics where rational, unbiased thought leads in one direction, and I think this is one of them.

The idea that randomly giving money to lower-income people will stimulate significant economic growth, or that we can create jobs by increasing the tax burden on the employers providing those jobs, is completely bass-ackwards. So is the idea that the government is qualified to determine what the energy source of the future is going to be. If pointing this out makes me look arrogant, so be it. I'm way too stunned and aghast with the opposite line of thought to much care how I look when saying so.

Welcome to my world. These are exactly the sorts of questions I want answered.

Ok, then I will not argue with you. Time to bring in some Chicago Boys?

__________________
The novelist does not long to see the lion eat grass. He realizes that one and the same God created the wolf and the lamb, then smiled, "seeing that his work was good".

--------

They had temporarily escaped the factories, the warehouses, the slaughterhouses, the car washes - they'd be back in captivity the next day but now they were out - they were wild with freedom. They weren't thinking about the slavery of poverty. Or the slavery of welfare and food stamps. The rest of us would be all right until the poor learned how to make atom bombs in their basements.

Now you're talkin'.

If I'm not mistaken, I believe it was large government expenditures that stimulated consumer demand and triggered economic recovery for the Great Depression.

Yoda, you are mostly unfairly criticizing the New Deal and the success it had, imagine where we'd be if not for the implimentation of the FDIC or the passing of the NLRA (Guarenteed the right of every worker to join a union, an essential right. You can argue for unions but there is no denying it is a breech of the consitution to not allow citizens to join unions). Also your memory has certaintly failed you as unemployment did not double. In fact it's quite the opposite. It fell from 25% to 14.3% during 1934-37. The only time the unemployement rate increased during Roosevelts administration was when Roosevelt believed the depression was easing and scaled back on goverment programs in 1938. Also, the GNP increased every year under Roosevelt's administration except for the same 1938 year.

Also, before the Great Depression we had a completely Republican decade in economic and political policy. Hm, what resulted after that? Oh, right. During Hoover (a Republican president with a "leave it alone" attitude) was the worst of the Great Depression. That's when the unemployement rate managed to soar from 8.6% to 23.6% and when the GNP fell 31% since 1929.

__________________
"Travis Bickle: Loneliness has followed me my whole life, everywhere. In bars, in cars, sidewalks, stores, everywhere. There's no escape. I'm God's lonely man."

You know, after I heard Yoda starkly contradict everything I have ever heard about the New Deal I did a little digging. Turns out, there's a whole slew of numbers that clash with each other. I've read in equal number of places that unemployment rose or that it declined. From what I am gathering, just a short hour of research, it all comes down to the typical flawed game of polling/statistics.

From the ones that said it went down they claim the other side is cherry-picking the data, and I personally think that's about right. Here's why: I read two separate articles from opponents of the New Deal, and they both claimed that New Deal government jobs were not included in their assessment of the New Deal. As in, all the jobs that were created to employee the unemployed did not come into the analysis, which if you were to actually take them into account you would find that you are both wrong. The New Deal did not raise, nor lower the unemployment. It just pretty much kept it the same. Of course, I just gathered this from an hour's research.

EDIT: All "New Dealness" aside, hehe, I can't say I'm too fond of the economic actions of our government. Now, that's not to say I don't support raising taxes on certain things and spending money on some very necessary changes/improvements. I just think this administration is raising and spending without much consideration as to what they're doing.

__________________
"This is that human freedom, which all boast that they possess, and which consists solely in the fact, that men are conscious of their own desire, but are ignorant of the causes whereby that desire has been determined." -Baruch Spinoza

John, you have stowed the cow in the barn, hit the nail on the head, and slapped the blind man in the eye. This is one reason I asked how we all feel about Obama on a personal level. The polls and the statistics be dammed. It is easy to feel good about a leader if so many others do, even if one is currently struggling. Change, she is a comin', or is she just making a brief, albeit flamboyant, head rearing? Yes we can!!!!! ---- but do we really want this type of change? I am not sure. I will be totally blunt here: I have no idea wth Obama is trying to do. He is like a child in a candy store and a big fat gift certificate to said store. Sure he can buy and spend all he wants, but when he is done will the store still be in business?

I got my information directly from my AP United States History book. I'd say a textbook is generally more dependable than an hours research on the internet .

But yes, there is defintely controversy surrounding what the real numbers were during the New Deal.

As for Obama, to be completely truthful I don't really know what he is really doing, I haven't payed enough attention to the news and ,of course, none of us here really know what he is doing. All I know is that, at least of what I'm aware of, history is behind him. I guess we'll see.

Yeah, and no reason to learn from it either.

You're right, he should. My point is that in similar situations, we know that mass spending by a government can end a recession. All I'm saying.

Don't be too sure about that one, because you'd be wrong. Dead wrong.

Reading history books for an hour is deadly now? I'm learning so much from this thread

I don't think he's been running round like a bull in a china store or anything has he? All the proposed stimulus money does seem to be hefty etc [but kind of in line with the tail end of the Bush admin no, in terms of bailouts? Tho perhaps going further than they would have done?]

As far as 'character defining' stuff, i think a lot of what he's done has been less flamboyant than people were expecting. Putting a cap on renditions (& tarring the old admin with their actions, RE waterboarding memos etc) was an expected one, but counterbalanced for some by his determination to focus on Afghanistan etc, and strengthening wiretapping capabilities with the 'willful disclosure' clause etc.

Certainly the $120 billion sci-stimulus is something the Bushies wouldn't have done, but again, it's not something most people will get excited about.

Well, unless they get negatively excited that is... ()...

By tax burden on employers, i take it there's been some form of business tax review? Not an income tax alteration like the UK.

I understand that you see 'demand-side' economics as a complete failure, but it has to be said you've been equally adamant about other best/worse causes of action, only for events to somewhat undermine you (IE the F&F debacle, which you were convinced from the get go was due to state intervention alone, but which seems now to have more muddier causes, with both state & free market making mistakes, 'independent' of each other, as it were)

On green-energy/sci-stimulus etc, we've agreed on the CC thread that prizes offer a win-win 'demand'/free-market compromise of sorts, for example. I guess it depends how a lot of this money's parcelled out.

Remember, it's Monopoly money, but it's been Monopoly money most all of my life.

__________________
It's what you learn after you know it all that counts. - John Wooden
My IMDb page

No not exactly, people would open their eyes to a bull trashing things, he is doing it with a bit more finesse. A bull cannot read a teleprompter after all .

In line with the Bush admin? Maybe somewhat at first, but this is getting quite crazy for lack of a better word. Do not get me wrong, I hope this all works out, but I do not see how it will.

Okay, I voted for him, and I must say I'm neither a detractor or a blind follower. It seems as though you get one of two extremes when discussing the current President; one side despises any and all decisions he makes, and the other praises him for even the most minor of successes. The dumbest thing I heard was that he was being praised for allowing use of force against the Samali pirates. Of course, ANY PRESIDENT WOULD! It's like when people were praising Bush for going to Afghanistan, as if it is some bold move given the situation. As far as the deficit, I seem to notice that either party is only concerned about it after they are out of power. The bailouts aren't going to fix anything, they were never meant to, it's simply cosmetic. I don't think either party is going to "fix" the economy, or really hurt it any more than it already is. As far as Iran and North Korea, I think it's counterproductive to give them credibility by acting all disturbed when their sawed-off leader says something offensive. Are they a threat, possibly, but the question is; even if they are, what can be done practically about it? That's the real question, even if it came to military action, the sad truth is these regions don't like us. So, we could install a brand new government, but given time they would most likely place someone similar into power. Unfortunately there are no long-term solutions for these situations, just acting on what the present facts are. I seriously doubt, simply for the fact of self-preservation, and political survival that even the most "liberal" peacenick would hesitate from dropping bombs at the hint of a real threat. When people are scared the first thing to go out the window is ideology, if anything 9/11 taught us that.

__________________


...uh the post is up there...

Respectfully, I believe you are mistaken, and that the belief expounded on above is one of the reasons Depression was as long as it was.

I had an entire mini-rant here about consumer demand and how it's inherent into the economy, and how supply has always been, and will always be, the difficult part of the equation, but this post touches on plenty of other topics, so I'll stay focused on those for now.

Whatever the initial merit of unions, they've mutated into something far different these days. But regardless, by "New Deal," I'm referring more to the "government as instigator of economic progress" and "public spending as a means to growth" ideology, and not every policy of Roosevelt's (I'm sure we could find plenty I agree with).

I made a mistake in my phrasing; you're right in that the literal "New Deal" didn't double unemployment, but Hoover enacted a number of policies before he left office that were consistent with the idea that you could spend and tax your way out of the downturn. I was a bit sloppy in lumping this in with the "New Deal" -- my bad. The similarity is impossible to ignore, however; after the crash he fast-tracked public building projects and raised taxes. The phrase "leave it alone," which you reference, came from his Treasury Secretary, and he denies embracing it. Whatever he thought of it personally, his policies after the crash are not even remotely consistent with the idea. They bear far more resemblance to Roosevelt's own ethos.

Ironically, Hoover ran on a platform of increased regulation, favored lowering taxes on lower-income taxpayers (though he didn't manage to), and encouraging volunteerism -- sound familiar?

By the by, the tax-raising after the crash which I mentioned above was progressive, IE: higher for higher incomes, and implemented an additional tax on businesses. He also implemented massive trade tarrifs (Smoot-Hawley, which I'm sure you've heard of), which were/are the antithesis of supply-side philosophy. So, the idea that Hoover's policies bore even the slightest resemblance to supply-side philosophy, lassez-faire economics, or anything of the sort, is an utter myth.

I also think that the insistence on focusing on each politician's party, rather than their policies, only confuses the matter. Republicans and Democrats are plenty varied as-is, nevermind 80 years ago.

Where is the evidence for this? We saw massive spending, and a recovery a full decade later! Far from being evidence of such an approach working, it seems to me that this is evidence against the idea.

Heck, just think about it: if massive government spending spurs economic growth, why not do it all the time? Why not do even more of it? When we think it through to its logical conclusion, and clarify just what economic growth really consists of, I think it becomes plainly obvious how untenable the idea is.

Hmm, you lost me here a bit, sorry to say. Mind clarifying?

I probably deserve a slight jab for being so careless in how quickly I pick up and drop some arguments, but don't take my failure to respond as some sort of concession. I'm working on a reply for that other thread now.

Regardless, I can certainly overreact without being, well, wrong, so whether or not I get overly worked up about bad ideas is kind of beside the point. The supply-side vs. demand-side argument is one of the most clear-cut in modern American politics, to my mind. I can certainly acknowledge that many issues are of special complexity and difficulty, and there are plenty of things I feel strongly about, but understand and sympathize with the opposing view. This just isn't one of them.