Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: Voodoo Economics


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Voodoo Economics Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Voodoo Economics - 3/14/2012 11:20:15 AM   
Musicmystery


Posts: 30259
Joined: 3/14/2005
Status: offline
quote:

from the day Mr. Obama took office last year to the end of the current fiscal year, the debt held by the public will grow....


That's your evidence? A two year old speculation?


(in reply to Yachtie)
Profile   Post #: 21
RE: Voodoo Economics - 3/14/2012 11:23:46 AM   
Musicmystery


Posts: 30259
Joined: 3/14/2005
Status: offline
quote:

Consider that from Jan. 20, 2001, to Jan. 20, 2009, under Mr. Bush,
By comparison, from the day Mr. Obama took office


Here's a look at GDP...


Impact on the DJIA...


The Bush recessions and the recovery...


The change in oil prices...


The housing market since the 2006 crash...


Economic growth...


Bush bought his way out of two recessions with monetary policy. That's OK by itself, but he ignored the underlying fundamentals and left the band-aid as the sutures. When interest rates were near zero when he left office, there was nowhere to go but fiscal policy--but that too had been run up, along with structural problems (long term unfunded wars in particular), steadily rising oil prices, and an unresolved housing crisis and credit collapse.

< Message edited by Musicmystery -- 3/14/2012 11:34:06 AM >

(in reply to Yachtie)
Profile   Post #: 22
RE: Voodoo Economics - 3/14/2012 12:06:10 PM   
Yachtie


Posts: 3593
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

from the day Mr. Obama took office last year to the end of the current fiscal year, the debt held by the public will grow....


That's your evidence? A two year old speculation?




The whole quote - By comparison, from the day Mr. Obama took office last year to the end of the current fiscal year, according to the Office of Management and Budget, the debt held by the public will grow by $3.3 trillion. In 20 months, Mr. Obama will add as much debt as Mr. Bush ran up in eight years.

Well, did he?

Source The Weekly Standard (Hey,,, it's NPR.org

When President Obama took office two years ago, the national debt stood at $10.626 trillion. It now stands at $14.071 trillion — a staggering increase of $3.445 trillion in just 735 days (about $5 billion a day).

To put that into perspective, when President George W. Bush took office, our national debt was $5.768 trillion. By the time Bush left office, it had nearly doubled, to $10.626 trillion. So Bush's record on deficit spending was not good at all: During his presidency, the national debt rose by an average of $607 billion a year. How does that compare to Obama? During Obama's presidency to date, the national debt has risen by an average of $1.723 trillion a year — or by a jaw-dropping $1.116 trillion more, per year, than it rose even under Bush.

In fairness, however, Obama can't rightly be held accountable for the 2009 budget, which he didn't sign (although he did sign a $410 billion pork-laden omnibus spending bill for that year, which is nevertheless tallied in Bush's column). Rather, Obama's record to date should really be based on actual and projected spending in fiscal years 2010 and 2011 (plus the $265 billion portion of the economic "stimulus" package, which he initiated and signed, that was spent in 2009 (Table S-10), while Bush's should be based on 2002-09 (with the exception of that same $265 billion, which was in no way part of the 2009 budgetary process).

How do Bush and Obama compare on closer inspection? Just about like they do on an initial glance. According to the White House's Office of Management and Budget, during his eight fiscal years, Bush ran up a total of $3.283 trillion in deficit spending (p. 22). In his first two fiscal years, Obama will run up a total of $2.826 trillion in deficit spending ($1.294 trillion in 2010, an estimated $1.267 trillion in 2011 (p. 23), and the $265 billion in "stimulus" money that was spent in 2009). Thus, Bush ran up an average of $410 billion in deficit spending per year, while Obama is running up an average of $1.413 trillion in deficit spending per year — or $1.003 trillion a year more than Bush.


Ok, so he didn't do it in 20 months. You got me.


< Message edited by Yachtie -- 3/14/2012 12:09:55 PM >


_____________________________

“We all know it’s going to end badly, but in the meantime we can make some money.” - Jim Cramer, CNBC

“Those who ‘abjure’ violence can only do so because others are committing violence on their behalf.” - George Orwell

(in reply to Musicmystery)
Profile   Post #: 23
RE: Voodoo Economics - 3/14/2012 12:14:11 PM   
MasterSlaveLA


Posts: 3991
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Edwynn



quote:

ORIGINAL:

So who do we believe? You? Or the data?



<Drum Roll>... THE DATA, despite how much that upsets your entitlement apple-cart. 





< Message edited by MasterSlaveLA -- 3/14/2012 12:30:14 PM >


_____________________________

It's only kinky the first time!!!

(in reply to Edwynn)
Profile   Post #: 24
RE: Voodoo Economics - 3/14/2012 1:01:11 PM   
Musicmystery


Posts: 30259
Joined: 3/14/2005
Status: offline
Again,

quote:

Bush bought his way out of two recessions with monetary policy. That's OK by itself, but he ignored the underlying fundamentals and left the band-aid as the sutures. When interest rates were near zero when he left office, there was nowhere to go but fiscal policy--but that too had been run up, along with structural problems (long term unfunded wars in particular), steadily rising oil prices, and an unresolved housing crisis and credit collapse.

(in reply to Yachtie)
Profile   Post #: 25
RE: Voodoo Economics - 3/14/2012 2:19:23 PM   
Yachtie


Posts: 3593
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

Again,

quote:

Bush bought his way out of two recessions with monetary policy. That's OK by itself, but he ignored the underlying fundamentals and left the band-aid as the sutures. When interest rates were near zero when he left office, there was nowhere to go but fiscal policy--but that too had been run up, along with structural problems (long term unfunded wars in particular), steadily rising oil prices, and an unresolved housing crisis and credit collapse.




There it is again, excoriating the right while intuiting defensiveness of the left. It's like the left can do no wrong. IT'S ALL THE RIGHT'S FAULT! BUSH DID IT!!!!
Even three years into Obama (the first two he had the Congress) and apparently he owns none of it.


_____________________________

“We all know it’s going to end badly, but in the meantime we can make some money.” - Jim Cramer, CNBC

“Those who ‘abjure’ violence can only do so because others are committing violence on their behalf.” - George Orwell

(in reply to Musicmystery)
Profile   Post #: 26
RE: Voodoo Economics - 3/14/2012 2:22:54 PM   
Musicmystery


Posts: 30259
Joined: 3/14/2005
Status: offline
Let me see if I've got this straight.

We're supposed to discuss the roots of the situation without mentioning the previous administration.

Dude. It's the factual economic reality of how we got here. If you want to blame Congress, go for it. But instead, you want to pretend none of it happened.

Thing is...it did happen. And here we are.

(in reply to Yachtie)
Profile   Post #: 27
RE: Voodoo Economics - 3/14/2012 3:35:59 PM   
Edwynn


Posts: 4105
Joined: 10/26/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterSlaveLA
<Drum Roll>... THE DATA, despite how much that upsets your entitlement apple-cart. 



As if you had any clue how to read the data in question. Dan Mitchell knows just enough to be dangerous, which is the sort of economist that The Heritage Foundation and The Cato Institute prefer.

Tell us how much of the underlying document you can understand. Page fourteen contains four charts that in now way support the authors' claims in their carefully worded abstract, not even by their highly complex and convoluted Gwartney and Lawson calculation of 'government size' (the left charts). Unless your understanding of scatter plots is different than statisticians'.

If you had any ability to understand the data, you wouldn't need the baby food condensation of it spoon fed to you by someone "Restraining Government in America and Around the World."



(in reply to MasterSlaveLA)
Profile   Post #: 28
RE: Voodoo Economics - 3/14/2012 3:41:40 PM   
Yachtie


Posts: 3593
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

Let me see if I've got this straight.

We're supposed to discuss the roots of the situation without mentioning the previous administration.

Dude. It's the factual economic reality of how we got here. If you want to blame Congress, go for it. But instead, you want to pretend none of it happened.

Thing is...it did happen. And here we are.



There it is again, the direct imputation (my previous use of intuit was incorrect. my bad.) that the roots are wholly of the right.

1) We're supposed to discuss the roots of the situation
2) [by] the previous administration.
3) It's the factual economic reality of how we got here.



And to say that I pretend none of it happened is contortionist and ludicrous.

Thing is...it did happen. And here we are.

Yes, it did and the left is not without its share of the blame.


_____________________________

“We all know it’s going to end badly, but in the meantime we can make some money.” - Jim Cramer, CNBC

“Those who ‘abjure’ violence can only do so because others are committing violence on their behalf.” - George Orwell

(in reply to Musicmystery)
Profile   Post #: 29
RE: Voodoo Economics - 3/14/2012 3:48:25 PM   
Musicmystery


Posts: 30259
Joined: 3/14/2005
Status: offline
1) Of course. What's the point of solving a problem when you don't know its cause?
2) The previous administration is what it is. Why it that a problem for you? The current administration is Bush Lite, and begged for the economic stimulus so many are lamenting. These are the decisions that were made, however you want to categorize them politically.
3) Ok, Skippy. Why don't you explain to the class the reality of how we got here.

(in reply to Yachtie)
Profile   Post #: 30
RE: Voodoo Economics - 3/14/2012 4:32:13 PM   
Yachtie


Posts: 3593
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

1) Of course. What's the point of solving a problem when you don't know its cause?
2) The previous administration is what it is. Why it that a problem for you? The current administration is Bush Lite, and begged for the economic stimulus so many are lamenting. These are the decisions that were made, however you want to categorize them politically.
3) Ok, Skippy. Why don't you explain to the class the reality of how we got here.



Bush Lite is tame. Now Obama is no worse over all than Bush, but he has expanded the debt under his watch. He's been a continuation of Bush for three years at the vary least.

The reality of how we got here goes back well before Bush and I'm pretty sure you know that. Both parties are complicit and I see no point in he said - she said data mining as it doesn't change the train wreck coming our way.

Seriously, will Obama do what is necessary (which is the actual question IMO)? I don't think so. Neither will Capt. Underoos (Romney), Santorum or Gingrich. They are all beholden to the Banksters one way or another.

The short of how we got here - buying on credit only lasts so long.



< Message edited by Yachtie -- 3/14/2012 4:34:34 PM >


_____________________________

“We all know it’s going to end badly, but in the meantime we can make some money.” - Jim Cramer, CNBC

“Those who ‘abjure’ violence can only do so because others are committing violence on their behalf.” - George Orwell

(in reply to Musicmystery)
Profile   Post #: 31
RE: Voodoo Economics - 3/14/2012 5:59:53 PM   
MasterSlaveLA


Posts: 3991
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Edwynn



quote:

ORIGINAL:

If you had any ability to understand the data, you wouldn't need the baby food condensation of it spoon fed to you...



Pssst ---> THE DATA






_____________________________

It's only kinky the first time!!!

(in reply to Edwynn)
Profile   Post #: 32
RE: Voodoo Economics - 3/14/2012 6:15:07 PM   
Edwynn


Posts: 4105
Joined: 10/26/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterSlaveLA
quote:

ORIGINAL: Edwynn
If you had any ability to understand the data, you wouldn't need the baby food condensation of it spoon fed to you...

Pssst ---> THE DATA





The data indeed:

"To make sense of the relationship between government and well-being in Europe, Sweden
might be a good place to start. The quintessential European welfare state, Sweden does well
in social outcomes: children and students enjoy free education, the elderly receive a decent
pension, everyone relies on a public health system that helps them live long and healthy
lives, and social trust is high.
The welfare system redistributes wealth and contributes to
an equitable distribution of income. All this is done with big government. From 1980 to
2010, Sweden’s government spending accounted on average for 59 percent of GDP. These
three-fifths of economic output that are spent by government are funded mainly by levying
charges and taxes on workers, families, and enterprises. Such high taxation surely gets in
the way of growth
. Or does it? Over the last three decades, Sweden’s per capita growth
was 1.7 percent—as it happens, just about the same as the United States. Yet government
spending in the U.S. was only 37 percent, or about three-fifths of government spending in
Sweden.
"



Like I said, you have no hope of comprehending the data you allude to, as the above proves.

Not unexpected from someone who uses "pssst" in super-sized bold to indicate whispering.




< Message edited by Edwynn -- 3/14/2012 6:22:42 PM >

(in reply to MasterSlaveLA)
Profile   Post #: 33
RE: Voodoo Economics - 3/14/2012 6:55:10 PM   
Edwynn


Posts: 4105
Joined: 10/26/2008
Status: offline

To the above it should be added: for the same growth rate, Sweden has far fewer poor people, far fewer per capita jail population, noticeably better health statistics, noticeably better measures of economic health such as positive net national savings, positive trade balance and account balance, lower deficits, lower total debt (both as % of GDP), "ease of doing business" close to the US and "competitiveness" on par with the US, lower capital consumption ... 

It's a lengthy list.

Some countries much better grasp of the concept of "an ounce of prevention saves a pound of cure" than does the US, not to mention them having a much higher regard for their own citizens.


< Message edited by Edwynn -- 3/14/2012 7:05:10 PM >

(in reply to Edwynn)
Profile   Post #: 34
RE: Voodoo Economics - 3/14/2012 7:15:32 PM   
DesideriScuri


Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery
Let me see if I've got this straight.
We're supposed to discuss the roots of the situation without mentioning the previous administration.
Dude. It's the factual economic reality of how we got here. If you want to blame Congress, go for it. But instead, you want to pretend none of it happened.
Thing is...it did happen. And here we are.


Oh, hold on now. What about the Community Reinvestment Act in the '70's? Wasn't that a big start to the housing bubble? Btw, that answer is, "yes."

Take a look at your oil price chart...do you see what happened in '06? The price plateaued and started to decline. In 2007, it started a fairly linear march upwards. Hmmm. That's odd, if you ask me. What happened in January '07.....hmmmmm...

Clinton had a Repubican (intentional misspelling) Congress force him into a box. Reagan's tax cuts didn't produce because Congress kept spending (and, yes, that's as much the Republicans fault as Democrats....if not more), which is also why Reagan had to increase taxes.

But, when push comes to shove, and you absolutely own both halls of Congress and the Presidency, you should be able to get the job done. And, the Democrats haven't been able to do that.

For all the Bush bashing that went on during his Presidency, the Democrats haven't really made too many changes. A budget is a plan for expenditures. It isn't set in stone. Yet, the D's still spent it. Then again, who is it that sets the budget? Who passed the budget? For the Democrats to rail against Bush for the 2009 budget, it's a bit disingenuous since they ruled the roost when the '08 and '09 budgets passed Bush.



(in reply to Musicmystery)
Profile   Post #: 35
RE: Voodoo Economics - 3/14/2012 7:15:56 PM   
MasterSlaveLA


Posts: 3991
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Edwynn


Pssst ---> THE DATA  (Do try to actually COMPREHEND it this time)

There are good reasons to suspect that big government is bad for growth. Taxation is perhaps the most obvious (Bergh and Henrekson 2010). Governments have to tax the private sector in order to spend, but taxes distort the allocation of resources in the economy. Producers and consumers change their behavior to reduce their tax payments. Hence certain activities that would have taken place without taxes, do not. Workers may work fewer hours, moderate their career plans, or show less interest in acquiring new skills. Enterprises may scale down production, reduce investments, or turn down opportunities to innovate. High taxes make market work less attractive, and time off from work and work at home more attractive. Thus high income taxes inhibit the development of markets that offer home-produced services. Such service sector jobs could be important to keep workers in jobs and off the welfare system, especially as traditional manufacturing jobs dwindle (Davis and Henrekson 2005).
 
Over time, big governments can also create sclerotic bureaucracies that crowd out private sector employment and lead to a dependency on public transfers and public wages. The larger the group of people reliant on public wages or benefits, the stronger the political demand for public programs and the higher the excess burden of taxes. Slowing the economy, such a trend could increase the share of the population relying on government transfers, leading to a vicious cycle (Alesina and Wacziarg 1998). Large public administrations can also give rise to organized interest groups keener on exploiting their powers for their own benefit rather than facilitating a prosperous private sector (Olson 1982).
 
 




Attachment (1)

_____________________________

It's only kinky the first time!!!

(in reply to Edwynn)
Profile   Post #: 36
RE: Voodoo Economics - 3/14/2012 7:35:15 PM   
Edwynn


Posts: 4105
Joined: 10/26/2008
Status: offline

Growth is slower in the developed economies, growth is faster in developing economies. Germany, Japan, the US, and China are the largest economies and have the largest governments. China has by far the fastest growth because they have by far the longest way to go. There is much more correlation between level of development and GDP growht rate than size of government and growth rate.

That explains the charts.

What is apparent is that you fail to even grasp the term "data," being as that you refer to two paragraphs of writing as "data." The authors of that long discredited notion of taxes vs. growth present not one iota of data to back it up.

The bar charts and scatter plots shown on page 14 here do not lie, regardless how much the authors with an agenda spend numerous pages with tripe such as the above to dance their way around it. You have nothing of your own to say about those graphics because you have no clue how to read them. That along with the fact that you refer to writing as "data" makes it a hoot that you propose to tell someone else to read something you yourself have no hope of comprehending.

Give up while you're only 800 miles behind already.




< Message edited by Edwynn -- 3/14/2012 7:47:10 PM >

(in reply to MasterSlaveLA)
Profile   Post #: 37
RE: Voodoo Economics - 3/14/2012 8:04:19 PM   
MasterSlaveLA


Posts: 3991
Status: offline
Pssst ---> Yet AGAIN... THE DATA  (Do try to actually COMPREHEND it this time)

There are good reasons to suspect that big government is bad for growth. Taxation is perhaps the most obvious (Bergh and Henrekson 2010). Governments have to tax the private sector in order to spend, but taxes distort the allocation of resources in the economy. Producers and consumers change their behavior to reduce their tax payments. Hence certain activities that would have taken place without taxes, do not. Workers may work fewer hours, moderate their career plans, or show less interest in acquiring new skills. Enterprises may scale down production, reduce investments, or turn down opportunities to innovate. High taxes make market work less attractive, and time off from work and work at home more attractive. Thus high income taxes inhibit the development of markets that offer home-produced services. Such service sector jobs could be important to keep workers in jobs and off the welfare system, especially as traditional manufacturing jobs dwindle (Davis and Henrekson 2005).
 
Over time, big governments can also create sclerotic bureaucracies that crowd out private sector employment and lead to a dependency on public transfers and public wages. The larger the group of people reliant on public wages or benefits, the stronger the political demand for public programs and the higher the excess burden of taxes. Slowing the economy, such a trend could increase the share of the population relying on government transfers, leading to a vicious cycle (Alesina and Wacziarg 1998). Large public administrations can also give rise to organized interest groups keener on exploiting their powers for their own benefit rather than facilitating a prosperous private sector (Olson 1982).
 






_____________________________

It's only kinky the first time!!!

(in reply to Edwynn)
Profile   Post #: 38
RE: Voodoo Economics - 3/14/2012 8:19:31 PM   
Edwynn


Posts: 4105
Joined: 10/26/2008
Status: offline

Yeah, you have no earthly clue what any of it means, we got it.

No need to shout it repeatedly, we got it the first time. The input to this point displays the developmental level of a parrot, congratulations.



< Message edited by Edwynn -- 3/14/2012 8:21:04 PM >

(in reply to MasterSlaveLA)
Profile   Post #: 39
RE: Voodoo Economics - 3/14/2012 8:28:44 PM   
MasterSlaveLA


Posts: 3991
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Edwynn

What is apparent is that you fail to even grasp the term "data," being as that you refer to two paragraphs of writing as "data."



Data [dey-tuh, dat-uh, dah-tuh]
 
noun

1. a plural of datum.
 
2. (used with a plural verb) individual facts, statistics, or items of information
 
3. (used with a singular verb) a body of facts; information


Comprehension is your friend. 



_____________________________

It's only kinky the first time!!!

(in reply to Edwynn)
Profile   Post #: 40
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Voodoo Economics Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.109