1. Discuss politics - join our community by registering for free here! HOP - the political discussion forum

Reality strikes, jobs remain a sore subject

Discussion in 'Business & Economics' started by dogtowner, Apr 7, 2012.

  1. dogtowner

    dogtowner Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    17,848
    Likes Received:
    1,464
    Location:
    Wandering around
    even the administration can't fake it any more.

    hiring is not happening and what little there is represent stepdowns. people contiue to give up because there is no hope of a change.

    real good time for the now presumptive GOP candidate to make educating the public on how Obama owns this train wreck alone and how only he can lead the US out of this mess to be job one where thisre is no job two..
     
  2. GenSeneca

    GenSeneca Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2008
    Messages:
    6,245
    Likes Received:
    501
    Location:
    ={CaLiCo}= HQ
    Romney is only going to offer alternative government interventions as solutions, he won't offer solutions that are an alternative to government. Any "recovery" built on government spending will ultimately collapse, either in the creation, inflation, and bursting of a new market bubble or total fiscal insolvency from the debt used to fund the "recovery".

    We're in a hole, both men believe we have to dig our way out. Obama thinks the solution is to use the largest possible shovel and when that doesn't work, get a bigger shovel. Romney believes that we can use a much smaller shovel by focusing our efforts on specific areas and only digging there. The suggestion that we use the ladder that's in the hole with us, a ladder that's already been built, to climb out of the hole is absurd to both men - because they only have the capacity to control how the shovel is used, not the ladder.
     
  3. dogtowner

    dogtowner Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    17,848
    Likes Received:
    1,464
    Location:
    Wandering around

    BO has shown your assessment of him to be true but I can't see where your assessment of ROmney has been articulated. Am I missing something ?
     
  4. pocketfullofshells

    pocketfullofshells Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2008
    Messages:
    12,009
    Likes Received:
    204
    Location:
    land of 10,000 lakes and 2 senators again
    I see stores all over starting to hire...and once again I know you hate this..who was in charge when the jobs starting going away? and under what president are they coming back? Hint

    [​IMG]
     
  5. pocketfullofshells

    pocketfullofshells Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2008
    Messages:
    12,009
    Likes Received:
    204
    Location:
    land of 10,000 lakes and 2 senators again
     
  6. GenSeneca

    GenSeneca Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2008
    Messages:
    6,245
    Likes Received:
    501
    Location:
    ={CaLiCo}= HQ
    Romney is a Progressive, that's what you've missed. Just a couple of examples off the top of my head...

    Free Trade, i.e. no government interference regarding trade - Romney wants to label China a currency manipulator and place tarriffs on chinese goods unless they allow the inflation of their currency. This is a classic example of protectionism and such policies, like starting a trade war with our biggest trading partner and debt purchaser, could have catastrophic consequences.

    Free Markets, i.e. no government interference in the markets - Romney wants to end subsidies to specific corporations (Obama's plan, Solyndra etc.) and instead offer subsidies to entire industries (e.g., the energy industry, wind, solar, oil, etc.). Romney, like most politicians, has always been a supporter of subsidies, usually through tax breaks or other tax incentives, which are a government interference in the market.

    Romney is a technocrat who believes that government interventions into the economy are crucial for creating and maintaining a healthy economy, his statements and proposals only differ with Obama on scale. An excellent example of this resides in the "stimulus" plans proposed by each man. Unlike Obama, Romney is not going to use government interventions to try and micro-manage the economy, just macro-manage it. Is that better than what we have now? Yes. Will it still ultimately fail? Yes, because it's all based on government action influencing economic activity.
     
  7. Gipper

    Gipper Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2009
    Messages:
    6,077
    Likes Received:
    387
    Location:
    Winter Wonderland
    Yeah Pockets...the jobs picture is just great.

    [/quote]
     
  8. BigRob

    BigRob Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2007
    Messages:
    7,541
    Likes Received:
    354
    Location:
    USA
    Romney wants to label China a currency manipulator because that is exactly what they are. If you truly want free trade between the US and China, then you need to be demanding that China stops playing a one sided game and actually allow free trade. If the manner to do that is the label China a currency manipulator (because that is what they are doing) then so be it. You seem to advocate for the status quo (which is not free trade) because it might limit our ability to sell debt -- not because the status quo is free trade. This seems to be glaring contradiction.

    I tend to agree -- subsidies should be abolished -- but would you label any change in tax policy a "government interference in the market"

    What specific plan of Romney's are you referencing here?
     
  9. GenSeneca

    GenSeneca Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2008
    Messages:
    6,245
    Likes Received:
    501
    Location:
    ={CaLiCo}= HQ
    And the Fed here in the US is not used to manipulate our currency, our interest rates, our inflation, etc.? We just seem to be pissed that China is beating us at, what we think is, our own game...

    I can demand nothing of the Chinese government regarding trade between our countries, I can only make demands of my government on the issue. If an individual wishes to purchase, or not purchase, products made in China, then they should be free to do so without interference from either government. If the Chinese government is doing something that a US buyer does not approve of, that buyer should simply make his purchase elsewhere, the US government need not be involved in such business decisions.

    What purpose will that serve? It sounds like the usual Leftist tactic of calling people names until they capitulate to your demands.
    Eliminating the involvement of the US government from the equation, in order to have truly free trade, is not the status quo.

    All subsidies should be abolished. Doing so would be removing government interference from the markets. Fiddling around with how subsidies are distributed does not remove the government interference, therefore, it is still entirely accurate to point out that it is still government interference into the market.

    I was speaking in general terms, as I stated, but I did offer some specific examples, like the "stimulus" package Romney offered in his last run for the White House.
     
  10. Gipper

    Gipper Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2009
    Messages:
    6,077
    Likes Received:
    387
    Location:
    Winter Wonderland
    Subsidies you say?

    Federal government subsidies have NEVER worked. They are rife with corruption, wastefulness, and nearly always fail. This have been the case for decades and decades. The original federal government subsidy lovers included Clay and Lincoln. Both men loved the subsidy because it centralized the government and give it extraordinary powers....most unconstitutional.

    Even in the mid 19th century many states and federal government leaders fought against the subsidy because they knew the truth. Unfortunately we now have a government full of politicians of both parties who love subsidies. Why? Simple. Because when they dole out taxpayer money, they have power. They love giving that money to their friends who then give some of it back to them in campaign contributions and other fraudulent ways (this is how politicians become amazingly wealthy).

    This is exactly what happened with BO's stimulus plan, which of course, FAILED to energize the economy, but did get lots of BO's friends rich and filled his campaign coffers. If only more Americans realized how bad subsidiaries are, our economy would be prospering.
     
    GenSeneca likes this.
  11. Gipper

    Gipper Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2009
    Messages:
    6,077
    Likes Received:
    387
    Location:
    Winter Wonderland
    If Romney were honest, he would also label the United States a currency manipulator. After all, what do you think the Fed has been doing the past few years? They are devaluing the dollar by printing and spending too many of them. Don't you think the Chinese find this inappropriate?

    If Romney is elected and actually honors his campaign promises, we could be in for big trouble. Should he start a trade war with China (by the way, this is exactly what the progressive Hoover did with the Smoot-Hawley tariffs in 1930 with disastrous results ...one would hope Romney would learn from history), it will only benefit big American corporations and hurt the American consumer and overall economy.

    You know? In some ways, Romney reminds me of Hoover. Oh damn....but he is the lesser of two evils....Progressivism v. Marxism. Not much of a choice.
     
  12. BigRob

    BigRob Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2007
    Messages:
    7,541
    Likes Received:
    354
    Location:
    USA
    Smoot-Hawley was not targetted at one specific country -- and I think you can get some good leverage politcally by labeling China a currency manipulator -- and demanding they live up to their WTO obligations. In case you have not noticed -- the trade climate with China already reeks of a trade war -- and it is one sided -- and we are getting taken advantage of.

    In fact, recent testimony before the Congressional-Executive Commission on China it was stated that China rountinely enacts the following:
    • discriminatory regulatory processes
    • informal bans on entry
    • overly burdensome and capricious licensing and operating requirements
    Why is it we are supposed to just sit here and allow China to manipulate the market in a one sided fashion -- not meet their WTO obligations (yet still retain all the benefits), devalue their currency by as much as 30% (I don't think anyone argues the US has done that), and continually steal our technology? Why would we establish a system and then advocate for a system in which we are the loser?

    We have a lot of power that we could use to limit these practices in which we lose -- why not at least talk about doing it?
     
  13. BigRob

    BigRob Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2007
    Messages:
    7,541
    Likes Received:
    354
    Location:
    USA
    I don't think many economists are arguing our currency is undervalued by 30%.

    And if that buyer cannot make the purchase elsewhere?

    You would be surprised how far high level rhetoric can get you diplomatically.
     
  14. Gipper

    Gipper Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2009
    Messages:
    6,077
    Likes Received:
    387
    Location:
    Winter Wonderland
    I did not state Smoot-Hawley targeted one country. But, should the US target China with onerous tariffs the consequences for most Americans and our economy could be most adverse, just at Smoot-Hawley was. Do you disagree?

    I agree that China is playing games that are unfair, but so is the US. Romney's threats against the Chinese are not helpful, other than playing well on main street and garnering votes.

    Why should the Chinese sit there and accept our devaluing the dollar while continuing to spend recklessly?
     
  15. GenSeneca

    GenSeneca Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2008
    Messages:
    6,245
    Likes Received:
    501
    Location:
    ={CaLiCo}= HQ
    The number of economists that agree with a claim isn't important, whether the claim is true or not is the only concern.

    [​IMG]

    It is only because of the currency manipulation taking place at the Fed that we are not experiencing massive hyper inflation as a result of these policies... But we want to label China a "currency manipulator" for doing the same thing.

    Then you're insane to want to start a trade war with China.

    Just so we're clear, you're saying that name calling is a legitimate and effective political tactic? Perhaps we should begin calling Iran all sorts of names, so they stop building nukes. o_O
     
Loading...

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice