Economists disagree with Obama policy!

Werbung:
I see. Can you name one? Last I heard, the only economist that supported Obama's plan, was a member of his campaign, or something like that.
 
I believe it was Truman who observed that if you were to line up all of the economists end to end, they would all point in different directions.

The government needs to regulate commerce, and didn't do a good job of it before the meltdown.

Illustration of why the government needs to be involved:

tt090217.gif


But, the government taking over private institutions is a monsterously bad idea.

Example of the government running business:

"BAIL EM OUT! ????

Hell, back in 1990, the Government seized the Mustang Ranch brothel in Nevada for tax evasion and, as required by law, tried to run it. They failed and it closed. Now we are trusting the economy of our country and our banking system to the same nit-wits who couldn't make money running a whore house and selling whiskey!"

As for deficit spending as a way out of the recession, if that worked, we shouldn't be in a recession. After the deficit spending spree of the past eight years, we should be in an unprecedented boom time if that really worked.
 
The government needs to regulate commerce, and didn't do a good job of it before the meltdown.

Since they didn't do a very good job that seems like more of an argument for taking the job away from them.

If instead we give them more control isn't that kind of like giving the failing CEO a bonus?
 
As for deficit spending as a way out of the recession, if that worked, we shouldn't be in a recession. After the deficit spending spree of the past eight years, we should be in an unprecedented boom time if that really worked.

You see the light.
 
Since they didn't do a very good job that seems like more of an argument for taking the job away from them.

If instead we give them more control isn't that kind of like giving the failing CEO a bonus?

Somebody has to regulate commerce. If not the government, then who? If they are doing a poor job of it, then their bosses need to hold their feet to the fire and insist that they do. We're their bosses, aren't we?
 
you are correct, alot of economist say we should have spent more and this will not be enough.

show me where it says that.... Most of the economists think that we should let the market adjust itself instead of trying to give it a steroids shot. Besides, the so called stimulus package is full of pork, it wans't desingned to create new jobs... that's a bunch of BS
 
Somebody has to regulate commerce. If not the government, then who? If they are doing a poor job of it, then their bosses need to hold their feet to the fire and insist that they do. We're their bosses, aren't we?

Commerce only needs to be regulated to the extent that the government stops one man from stealing from another. We expect the scale at the butchers to accurately weigh the meat. If the butcher commits fraud then our recourse is to bring him to the attention of the prosecutor.
What we do not need is for the government to be telling the butcher that he can sell beef but not foie gras.

Liquor stores should be allowed to sell gift boxes.

Fire trucks are required to stop at red lights in New Orleans.

You can't sneeze on trains in West Virginia.

In Main you can't walk down the street with your shoes untied.

In Tennessee it is illegal to shoot anything except a whale from a moving car.

In Ohio it is illegal for your car to run out of gas.

Ketchup is a vegetable.

The first few grams of fat in a product don't count. So if your product is spray butter it can legally be called fat free even though it is 100% fat.

I didn't work as hard as I could have. But do you doubt that I could have created a list that was exclusively commerce related? I could have talked about the definitions of "natural" and "organic" and the various rules that are clearly designed to harm the competition rather than to promote fair trade.

In short, I agree that regulation is necessary. But it has gotten ridiculous and needs to be reigned in not expanded. We need to focus on the purpose of regulation - which is to stop people from hurting one another, rather than on the promotion of one lobbyists desires over another's or the promotion of one politicians pet project over another's.

We are their bosses but they think they are ours.
 
Commerce only needs to be regulated to the extent that the government stops one man from stealing from another.

Yes, and that is what didn't happen prior to the economic meltdown.

I didn't work as hard as I could have. But do you doubt that I could have created a list that was exclusively commerce related? I could have talked about the definitions of "natural" and "organic" and the various rules that are clearly designed to harm the competition rather than to promote fair trade.

In short, I agree that regulation is necessary. But it has gotten ridiculous and needs to be reigned in not expanded. We need to focus on the purpose of regulation - which is to stop people from hurting one another, rather than on the promotion of one lobbyists desires over another's or the promotion of one politicians pet project over another's.


Yes, it needs to be reined in, but it needs to be effective at stopping fraud in the marketplace Selling "toxic" mortgages as viable assets should have been caught. Bernie Madoff should have been caught.

We are their bosses but they think they are ours.

Therein lies a whole host of problems. Sometimes, I think the people think they are our bosses as well.
 
I see. Can you name one? Last I heard, the only economist that supported Obama's plan, was a member of his campaign, or something like that.

"The stimulus package scheduled to be voted on Tuesday, say contrarian economists, is simply too small to withstand the economic storm that's coming.

It's a matter of basic math, says economist Dean Baker of the Center for Economic and Policy Research. The economy is currently losing - annually -- $450 billion in housing wealth, $650 billion in consumer spending and $150 billion in commercial real estate value."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/09/is-stimulus-too-small_n_165076.html

"I'd like to see it bigger." Krugman said. "I understand that there's difficulty in actually spending that much money, and I--they're also afraid of the--of the T word. They're afraid of a trillion dollar for the two-year number. But you know, the back of my envelope says it takes roughly 200 billion a year to cut the unemployment rate by 1 percent from what it would otherwise be. In the absence of this program, we could very easily be looking at a 10 percent unemployment rate. So you do the math and you say, you know, even these enormous numbers we're hearing about are probably enough to mitigate but by no means to reverse the slump we're heading into. So this is--you know, I--they're thinking about it straight."

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/12/28/ftn/main4688594.shtml


Lawrence Summers
In this crisis, doing too little poses a greater threat than doing too much. Any sound economic strategy in the current context must be directed at both creating the jobs that Americans need and doing the work that our economy requires. Any plan geared toward only one of these objectives would be dangerously deficient. Failure to create enough jobs in the short term would put the prospect of recovery at risk. Failure to start undertaking necessary long-term investments would endanger the foundation of our recovery and, ultimately, our children's prosperity.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/12/26/AR2008122601299.html?nav=hcmoduletmv

Dean Baker co-director of the Centre for Economic and Policy Research.
The main features of the bill are very much on the right track. The biggest problem is that it should be larger. This downturn is so severe that this package may not be sufficient to offset even half of its impact
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2009/jan/19/barack-obama-economic-stimulus

there is a few for you, happy? to much fox news and you missed them all?
 
Typical idiot response. As I said before, I don't get Fox News at all. Just another lame leftist quip.

Beyond that, I only see one respectable economist, namely Dean Baker.

Lawrence Summer is a screwball. He worked for Bill Clinton. Worked with Enron and Kenneth Lay. Worked for the World bank (wonder why he supported bank bailouts?).

Then there's Paul Krugman. Here's a winner. A self described liberal. Here's a guy that actually tried to claim the reason for Asian economic growth, wasn't because of capitalism, but rather, increased work force. Right....

So bad is his reputation, that even the Economist Magazine noted this about him:
A glance through his past columns reveals a growing tendency to attribute all the world's ills to George Bush…Even his economics is sometimes stretched…Overall, the effect is to give lay readers the illusion that Mr Krugman's perfectly respectable personal political beliefs can somehow be derived empirically from economic theory.

In other words, he morphs his economic theories to fit, and validate, his political views. In plain terms... he's a hack.

Not to mention that he didn't just advise, but worked for and collected a consulting fee for working on the Enron advisory board. He did a bang up job it seems.

So to recap, you have 1 economist.. Dean Baker, compared to the roughly 100 plus names on the signed letter against Overspend-Obama plan.

I'm not seeing this wide support for the plan.
 
Werbung:
It's a matter of basic math, says economist Dean Baker of the Center for Economic and Policy Research. The economy is currently losing - annually -- $450 billion in housing wealth, $650 billion in consumer spending and $150 billion in commercial real estate value."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/09/is-stimulus-too-small_n_165076.html

The basic math that we can all see is that if the gov borrows the amount of money that he says would be needed it might and maybe save us from a hardship now but it would enslave our heirs to paying back their ancestors debt.

Doing nothing might result in hardship now but the situation wold correct itself as all these natural feedback systems do.
 
Back
Top