1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Discuss politics - join our community by registering for free here! HOP - the political discussion forum

Economists disagree with Obama policy!

Discussion in 'U.S. Politics' started by Andy, Feb 17, 2009.

  1. Andy

    Andy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2008
    Messages:
    3,497
    Likes Received:
    59
    Trophy Points:
    48
    As unshocking as that is to me, it might be interesting to the Obama-bots, that people who understand economics, know that the "stimulus" plan, won't "stimulate" anything.

    http://www.cato.org/special/stimulus09/cato_stimulus.pdf

    Funny how government overspending, never helped in the past, but trying it again can't hurt.. or can it...
     
  2. pocketfullofshells

    pocketfullofshells Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2008
    Messages:
    12,009
    Likes Received:
    203
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    land of 10,000 lakes and 2 senators again
    you are correct, alot of economist say we should have spent more and this will not be enough.
     
  3. Andy

    Andy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2008
    Messages:
    3,497
    Likes Received:
    59
    Trophy Points:
    48
    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.
     
  4. PLC1

    PLC1 Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2007
    Messages:
    9,922
    Likes Received:
    491
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    The Golden State
    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:

    [​IMG]

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

    Example of the government running business:

    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.
     
  5. Dr.Who

    Dr.Who Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2007
    Messages:
    6,776
    Likes Received:
    251
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Horse Country
    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?
     
  6. Dr.Who

    Dr.Who Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2007
    Messages:
    6,776
    Likes Received:
    251
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Horse Country
    You see the light.
     
  7. PLC1

    PLC1 Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2007
    Messages:
    9,922
    Likes Received:
    491
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    The Golden State
    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?
     
  8. XCALIDEM

    XCALIDEM Active Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2008
    Messages:
    1,052
    Likes Received:
    10
    Trophy Points:
    38
    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
     
  9. Dr.Who

    Dr.Who Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2007
    Messages:
    6,776
    Likes Received:
    251
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Horse Country
    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.
    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.
     
  10. PLC1

    PLC1 Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2007
    Messages:
    9,922
    Likes Received:
    491
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    The Golden State
    Yes, and that is what didn't happen prior to the economic meltdown.


    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.

    Therein lies a whole host of problems. Sometimes, I think the people think they are our bosses as well.
     
  11. pocketfullofshells

    pocketfullofshells Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2008
    Messages:
    12,009
    Likes Received:
    203
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    land of 10,000 lakes and 2 senators again
    "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?
     
  12. Andy

    Andy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2008
    Messages:
    3,497
    Likes Received:
    59
    Trophy Points:
    48
    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:

    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.
     
  13. Dr.Who

    Dr.Who Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2007
    Messages:
    6,776
    Likes Received:
    251
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Horse Country
    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.
     
Loading...

Share This Page