|
bub about: It
and my statement that bush had a net of 2million jobs was wrong. i looked at january of 2000 as his starting point instead of 2001. so it was a net of only about 750,000ish. regardless, i'm happy to see the line trending back up right now. i don't give a crap who gets credit or blame, so long as things improve. also, it sounds like i'm against obama here, but that's not the case. i mean, i voted for the guy.
Jan 20, 2012 9:48:00 am
bub about: It
the timing of the recessions in those terms makes a big difference. an honest comparison would show a particular time frame from an equal starting point. for example, obama has outperformed bush on job creation in the 3 years after the end of their respective recessions. but considering bush's recession started at the beginning of his term and "obama's recession" was nearly over when he took office, it's not an equal comparison.
Jan 20, 2012 9:44:13 am
Thews about: Krugman
Wes, as I've told you in the past, any argument that former Enron advisor Krugman makes is null to me. I had read enough of his view that his ignorance and buffoonery require his illegitimate position be permanently discredited. Regarding the cartoon, $800B of stimulus was passed, high speed rail is not nearly as shovel ready as the pipeline, as well as the gov't subsidized rail model is bunk - see Amtrak, the "jobs bill" was an attempt to pass stimulus Jr. The original stimulus was ineffective at best, why would any sane person do the same thing and expect a different result?!?!?? THE GOVERNMENT DOES NOT CREATE JOBS, A HEALTHY FREE MARKET ECONOMY DOES!!
Jan 20, 2012 7:58:20 am
Wes about:
I don't think it's deceptive in regards to the argument of the article
Jan 20, 2012 7:29:32 am
Wes about: It
The graph only represents the first term cuz that's what the article references. It discusses what bush did during his first term recession v obama in terms of job creation. The second term is meaningless to the discussion
Jan 20, 2012 7:28:20 am
bub about: It
that graph is effectively deceiving. the second graph especially. it leads one to believe that things were going great, then bush did something and blammo, job hemorrhage, but if they cropped the graph to the full length of bush's term, you would see that it went back well beyond the upper limit in that graph. after the 2 million job loss, there was an 8 million job gain...and then the subsequent recession and more job loss. from the time he took office to the time he left, there was an increase of 2 million jobs...if you look at it just purely by numbers. causation and lasting effect is another subject.i think the real thing to take away here is that our economy is cyclical. despite my recent shift in beliefs about the infallibility of the "free market system", it has blips, and those blips eventually correct themselves. it's happened dozens of times in the past. if you look at the graph below, you can see the jobs picture over a larger time frame, and what strikes me is the difference in the amplitude of those blips. is that due to our reaction/over-reaction to the blips? or is there something fundamentally different about "Today" than the 1940s-1970s? access to information? is there more/less fiddling with the market? or if we zoomed out further, would we see a trend of something like "extended period of increased growth, followed by a slightly shorter period of less/no growth, followed by another extended period of growth"? beats me. i think it would be interesting to see, but i'm too lazy to try to find that data. jobs over a larger period
Jan 20, 2012 6:26:36 am
wes about: It
a non-cartoon counterpoint
Jan 20, 2012 5:26:29 am
wes about: It
like this Thews?
Jan 20, 2012 5:22:08 am
Thews about: It's Official
Barack Obama has just proven he's not only disingenuous, but that he's also a political hack. I thought Jobs were a priority or something...
Jan 19, 2012 3:57:07 am
wes about: so I
and with that Merry Christmas! My Christams wish is that next year isn't an orgy of inefficient consumerism. However I don't expect it.
Dec 23, 2011 4:39:50 am
wes about: so I
because giving me a gift is never about me, it's about you
Dec 23, 2011 4:38:31 am
wes about: so I'm a scrooge
I couldn't agree more w/ this... no presents!
Dec 23, 2011 4:36:30 am
bub about: Kiss my Fannie
and consumer irrationality.
Dec 22, 2011 1:44:17 am
wes about: Kiss my Fannie
I think it's a bit of both actualy. Add in consumer irresponsibility as well.
Dec 21, 2011 7:02:14 am
Thews about: Kiss my Fannie
A great argument for getting gov't out of the housing market. Maybe it's not Wall Street greed after all, but gov't ineptitude and cover-up that is the reason for the collapse of the market. Just sayin'... SEC v. Fannie & Freddie
Dec 21, 2011 5:55:40 am
bub about: monetary policy shift
the more i MOVE towards the middle. i can't type.
Dec 16, 2011 3:41:55 am
bub about: monetary policy shift
so, i've been reading/learning/working with "complexity theory" and "emergence" a lot lately...and the more i learn about it, the more i towards the middle of the "free market/regulated market". that might not be the most accurate description (middle), because i think both ways are completely flawed...mostly because they assume that the economy hardly deviates from equilibrium. i think that's utterly wrong. i think so, because that assumes that the people making the decisions (either on the supply side or demand side) are making rational decisions. i think that's a terrible assumption. people show time and again that we're terrible at making rational decisions. i think both regulated and free market theories assume rational decisions, i know free market does...am i wrong in assuming regulated markets do as well?
Dec 16, 2011 3:31:50 am
wes about: funny
poking fun at both sides...
Oct 18, 2011 8:59:22 am
wes about: balanced budget
amazing! and the most astute critique of gov't I've heard in years.
Oct 10, 2011 2:24:07 am
andy about: balanced budget
this guy is awesome. "Should'a went to Norfolk state...shit got me sweatin'." balanced budget rant
Oct 7, 2011 10:38:12 am
bub about: NFL v. Public Schooling
privatization will keep lower-income people from being able to afford good schools. if there's a way to keep that from happening, i'd be willing to listen. but, privatizing isn't going to help the poor schools get better teachers (or equipment). you'll end up seeing a widening gap between the poorer schools and the richer schools. right now, we need to bring the lower-performing schools up, while not bringing the better-performing schools down. i've been in favor of vouchers in the past, which helps the kids, but it doesn't address the problem with the school that kid was attending. i am friends with a lot of teachers, but tenure needs to be one of the first things to go. either get rid of it or make it something difficult to get...like 25 years of teaching or something. 3 years is ridiculous. i think part of the problem with the way we approach reform, as a nation, is that you have to have this huge sweeping plan that is perfect in every way...that's stupid. you can make changes here and there, see how they affect things, then reassess things, rinse and repeat.
Oct 4, 2011 1:54:43 am
Thews about: NFL v. Public Schooling
You guys should also check out "Waiting for Superman" (directed by Davis Guggenheim of an Inconvenient Truth). For a great documentary on the public v. charter school debate. It infuriates me as a citizen that we allow this broken system to be this dysfunctional to our kids and our nation's future. I'm all for improving schools, but it shouldn't start with the buildings any longer, there is no correlation of fresh paint to improved proficiency. As radical as it sounds, privatize the system. It would makes our dollars go further and strengthen our competitive outlook as a nation for generations. The only thing that is preventing this is NEA/ NFT. It is shameful that when their interests are challenged they cry bloody murder on behalf of "the kids".
Oct 3, 2011 9:43:27 am
bub about: NFL v. Public Schooling
i think his argument has two parts. part 1, tenure fosters complacency. part 2, the government isn't spending it's money wisely. i don't think it's disjointed. instead of spending their money on better teachers (much bigger conversation), they are taking the easy way out and throwing money at equipment. "how can you say i'm not a champion for the schools? look how much money we spent." the system is broke and needs real attention, but it's political suicide, especially if a dem went after correcting the problems with the tenure system. and yes, there are very real needs for modernizing schools. i don't think anyone would argue that you need a minimally acceptable environment to foster real learning. hard to imagine high schools like mine getting government money to modernize when their are plenty of schools in the city that have plaster falling off the walls. i know that's over-simplified, but the point is still the same...some schools need that money more than others and it seems silly to give ANY to schools with TVs in every room, when others are decrepit.
Oct 3, 2011 7:36:57 am
wes about: NFL v. Public Schooling
I'll wait for the debate to ensue. One issue I have though is this quote...
"Perhaps no other sector of American society so demonstrates the failure of government spending and interference. We've destroyed individual initiative, individual innovation and personal achievement, and marginalized anyone willing to point it out."
Mr. Tarnkenton spent the bulk of the article pointing to the union model as the problem, then in this paragraph claims "government spending and interference". I don't see the correlation other than the gov't ifnrastructure spending which he discussed as a failure to fix everything. I think that is another issue entirely. New computers in classrooms aren't causing lack of incentive. But I'm splitting hairs. He's arguing against unions and threw a quick jab at the gov't. Not salient.
Oct 3, 2011 6:39:36 am
Thews about: NFL v. Public Schooling
A worthwhile comparison to spur debate. I'd love Berg's take on this... Tark on Education
Oct 3, 2011 5:04:34 am
Thews about: Exceptionalism
I found this rather interesting. I didn't find it inflammatory but I'm sure it won't sit perfectly w/ everyone. It is a worthy diatribe on the current political environs. Like the Greeks & Brits...
Sep 1, 2011 3:56:15 am
Thews about: The Broken Window
I get that infrastructure needs built initially and up-kept afterwards. All of the money spent on rebuilding Ground Zero could've gone directly to starving al Qaeda children, however. Once things are purchased, it's a waste to have to spend $$ again before the the useful life is up. Bridges need built, I get it. They should be built by the states how they see fit. Infastructure Bank = EVIL.
Sep 1, 2011 3:46:32 am
wes about: The Broken Window
the cute video ignores the fact that bridges still need to be built. economic theory calls for equilibrium, these pointless political arguments deal only in extremes. Krugman, in theory, was right in that video that 9/11 COULD be an econmic benifit like WW2 was. it's considered insensitive (hence the red text,) so he's a lunatic.
Sep 1, 2011 2:55:23 am
Thews about: The Broken Window
If we all operated in the realm of academia Krugman may be right about 1/2 the time, but we don't so he's wrong 99% of the time. Stossel is more a policy guru than an economist. I do love his crazy Libertarin ideals though, and obvs, I think we be better off we adopted more of them. Pure economists are interesting as shit, eg Gladwell and the Freakonomics authors. But again, theory and actuality are often 2 different realms. Any -Ism works perfectly in theory.
Aug 31, 2011 8:53:07 am
Aaron about: The Broken Window
I like storytime. And Hen is an imbicile. As far as Krugman, I see him on Sunday mornings and everything he says has to be taken with a grain of salt. He speaks in the realm of the economic theory and philosophy. And since he usually agrees with the policies of the left all conservatives believe he is an idiot. I don't think he's dumb, just that he doesn't really know anything for sure, which makes him a bad "economic expert", but I don't know if there are any good ones. Well, besides Stossel :)
Aug 31, 2011 8:13:35 am
Thews about: The Broken Window
The video clip also exemplifies Krugman's idiocy, Wes...
Aug 31, 2011 3:53:38 am
Thews about: The Broken Window
So I'm talking to the Hen yesterday and he said Irene destruction is a good thing because now will have to rebuild some bridges. That is ludicrous. Here's some economic logic...
Aug 31, 2011 3:31:37 am
Aaron about: ConThewsed
One thing I wanted to chime in on. FDR's work programs might not have "created real jobs", but it created real work - parks and such. I would like to see some sort of program along the lines of the United Way Day of Caring or habitat for humanity where untrained volunteers paint curbs or plant trees. Only it would be a 2 day a week job for the unemployed to keep their benefits - at least after the first 50 weeks. So essentially unemployment benifits wouldn't be hand-outs, they would be a job. The issue is that the gov. would have to pay to administrate and supply construction materials. That would all be new costs but for the free labor, it would be worth it.
Aug 30, 2011 5:05:47 am
bub about: ConThewsed
i'd be surprised to see him out after 1 term. i'm on the side of "i'm looking for someone i have confidence in to get the job done and turn things around", and while obama hasn't "fixed" things per se, i'm not feeling a whole lot of confidence is the people the republicans are trotting out. i hate feeling like "the devil we know is better than the devil we don't know". that's a shitty position for the country to be in. and no, i'm not calling obama the devil.and no, the stimulus hasn't worked. and to be totally honest, i don't know what you do next. if you switch to the other end of the economics spectrum, you look like you're grasping at straws. and if the president looks like he doesn't know what he's doing (insert gwb joke), people won't be quick to embrace it. but we're so divided and there's a great deal of vitriol from both sides of the aisle/country, that i can't fathom how anyone can get both sides to agree on how to solve the problem. let's say you try freidman's tactics...the middle and lower class may revolt, despite the fact that it will improve things for them in a short amount of time...but they'll be pissed because before they see any improvement, the rich will get richer. and if you increase revenue and create more government jobs, 95% of republicans are going to be pissed that you're trying to make the US a socialist country, even though the temporary jobs will help the lower and middle class first. i don't envy obama's position. i was of the opinion that he "couldn't lose" when he took office, because i assumed things would have turned around by now (even with nature taking its course) and he would get to claim victory and we'd have parades for him and name our kids after him and stuff. it seems the only thing to do is "fuck each side equally". raise revenue and remove regulations, while cutting some fat. all of that being a temporary measure. won't happen. fucking everyone doesn't get you elected (insert kennedy/clinton joke).
Aug 26, 2011 6:10:15 am
Thews about: ConThewsed
Bub that was a very succinct post, never-the-less Obama's public spending kick didn't work, maybe is time to channel some Reagan, that's all I'm saying. I'm pretty laseiz faire about that stuff, but, I can see some regulation as a necesity for stability. (Note that does not include the regulation of CO2. That is gov't overreach at it's worst.) Obama will not try any iterations of supply side fixes and he'll be out of office in a single term. It's the arrogance and rigidity of his mindset that I truely find neauseating.
Aug 26, 2011 4:58:55 am
wes about: ConThewsed
"In the long run, we'll all be dead"
Aug 26, 2011 4:45:30 am
wes about: ConThewsed
Bub, great reganomics critique! and regarding your new deal thoughts, true as well, that's why there was a massive recession in the post-war yrs. Too bad Truman got blamed for that. I think he was a good pres. Neither plan is anything more than a stop-gap. History proves it out over and over. also niether proves Keynes or Friedman right or wrong.
Aug 26, 2011 4:44:23 am
wes about: ConThewsed
never heard of krugman, just googled reganomics and linked it cuz it seemed to back my point. i'll gladly ignore him. but to FDR - massive spending on WWII was still a stimulus. You're right and it proves my point. to be clear I wouldn't argue for a new New deal, or Reganomics right now. I also don't think Obama or the republicans have any clue what they're doing.
Aug 26, 2011 4:41:52 am
bub about: ConThewsed
reagan employed milt freidman's policies of deregulation/tax cuts/etc. as a method to spur growth in the economy. it achieved exactly that. i'm a huge fan of freidman's ideas( including those that reagan used), but for my money, they should only be used as a temporary "kick start" when your economy is suffering. you saw a very similar thing in chile during the pinochet regime. they employed the same ideas, saw significant growth, but a few years later things bombed again. regulation as a whole, is a huge barrier to entry when you are looking to grow your economy. post-war germany was struggling to recover, because of over-regulation. once they took those regulations away, the growth was "overnight" in economic terms. the trouble is that once things rebound, you need some regulation to keep things from becoming too unbalanced, with the wealthy becoming somewhat of an oligarchy (see pinochet's chile). the thought that "reaganomics" is a great permanent fiscal policy, is false to me. some tenets make perfect sense (less government = less waste = good for us), but a completely free market results in a two class system unless you regulate it some. as far as FDR's new deal...i'm against "putting people to work" by creating temporary government jobs. it's like artificially inflating your bottom-line. it doesn't actually create real jobs. i'm sure that will spark far more conversation than most of the rest of my post.
Aug 26, 2011 4:33:59 am
Thews about: ConThewsed
I'd like to see some metrics to support your point, more than Paul Krugman said, because as previously mentioned, I believe his is certifiably insane.
Aug 26, 2011 4:33:46 am
Thews about: ConThewsed
Krugman is a hack and a fool. The fact that he was an Enron advisor should nullify every word coming from his mouth. I would argue it was the run up of massive production of WWII that did more for us than FDR's policies.
Aug 26, 2011 4:25:32 am
wes about: ConThewsed
Reganomics = poverty rose, middle class was stagnant, wealthy horded money, and then there was the resulting crash 6 yrs later. Bush.2 implemented the same "Regan" strategy in 2000 and we see where that got us. Not sure it worked as well as you want to believe.
But as a thought exercise to answer your question - if you believe Reganomics got us out of a recession once, therefore we should do the same now (thus ignoring any differences in the realities of the situation between now and 30 yrs ago) then you must also agree that FDR's New Deal got us out of a bigger recession 70 yrs ago. So according to that logic the only thing better for us now than cutting taxes, de-regulation and supply-side economics is massive spending on government programs. Afterall history is a valid precendent... it's arguable Reganomics worked, no matter what Obama says
Aug 26, 2011 4:05:19 am
Thews about: ConThewsed
I don't understand why history isn't a valid precendent... One of the remedies worked...
Aug 26, 2011 3:20:28 am
wes about: this terrifies me
Huntsman?
Aug 22, 2011 8:20:20 am
wes about: this terrifies me
"The mainstream media -- and to an extent, the progressive media, as well -- are made up of elites, people who went to good schools, most of them raised on either the east or west coasts. To these elites, the thought of someone espousing the sort of frightening beliefs that Paul embodies having a serious impact on American politics is just too much to bear, so denial becomes the default position. It's not conscious -- not a deliberate attempt to cover something up, just something too weird and awful to be true, so the notion is simply dismissed. Yet if you look at Paul's positions and look at how successive GOP fields have moved closer to them (with the exception of the anti-war stance) over the last three election cycles, his impact is clear.
And the notion that regular Americans would buy into an ideology that seeks to implement biblical law as the law of the land really shouldn't come as a surprise to reporters. The Pew 2006 survey found that nearly one-third of Americans said they felt the law of the Bible should outweigh citizen preferences in the formation of civil law."
I was a week early w/ my concerns
Aug 22, 2011 7:35:41 am
wes about: this terrifies me
and if it's all about cutting taxes, I have to assume you are behind Barry on this one. Explain the GOP's blatant hypocracy on this... GOP to raise taxes
Aug 22, 2011 7:23:56 am
wes about: this terrifies me
you really think he worsened it by saving banks, GM, etc?
Aug 22, 2011 7:22:44 am
wes about: this terrifies me
8 yrs of reckless spending that took a historic surplus and turned it into a historic recession is waaaay worse than Obama's (and to be fair Bush's) stimulus spending to stabilize the economy. Basic economic theory agrees that recessions require spending. I don't think Obama has aced the last 2 years, but what he (and Bush) had to do to save what was left of the economy is worlds different than Bush's first 7 years of lighting the economy on fire.
Aug 22, 2011 7:22:04 am
Thews about:
I don't blame Obama for the recession. I blame him for worsening it with bad policy decisions. If 8 yrs of reckless spending is bad, what is the same amount of reckless spending in 2 years?? If lack of regulation is bad, regulating things to the point where the regulations haven't even been defined must a be a great thing for stability-starved business. So we have more of what caused the problem initially coupled with the unintended consequences of knee-jerk reactionist regulatory measures, which are giant in scope and haven't even been put into full effect. Because somehow we've managed to pass laws without knowing WTF is in them. One may not even be constitutional for crissakes. Sure BO inherited a shit storm of bad conditions, he reminds me everyday about the failures of others. I just don't think he's as blameless as he fancies himself. I don't understand your second post. I'm always against expanding government, no matter who is helming the decision. Miliary intervention needs to be taking on a case by case, but after a decade of combat, I think we need to re-evaluate our goals so we can prioritize the use of our dollars.
Aug 22, 2011 6:58:13 am
wes about: this terrifies me
and the MBA's dose of jesus got us into a few wars and more gov't. which fucked our economy. so it's win/win I suppose?|
Aug 22, 2011 3:42:50 am
|
