Crazy Libertarians, What Do They Know About Economics?

[Jeepster80125 0]

Alot of issues in there, but something I hope to see in the not so distant future is a move towards the reduction of spending via. streamlining businesses, and when I say business I mean whatever the government has its hands in. For example, education is one area where for whatever reason public venues just can't seem to balance budgets whilst privates/charters do a better job with less. Find out what works/doesn't work, duplicate/eradicate as needed. Same with Medicaid issues. The fraud that talkes place with that program is astounding. In my mind, it can't be government. It has to be independent of government in terms of who you hire to identify potential fixes. There are people whos very job is coming into companies, finding what the B.S. is and helping to eliminate that. They are contracted in, they work a spell, and they are done. They have no skin in the game except for the fact that they are payed to make whatever entity it is more efficient. Personally I don't think either candidate will do enough/is planning to do enough to pull this off, and raising taxes isnt the answer because it stunts growth. I don't think any one think anyone thing is really the answer but if I had to come up with a formula I would say this: #1 Reduce spending via. efficiency #2 Corporate tax cuts and ladder it- the more jobs you create, the more money you won't have to pay the Government. #3 Tax cuts to increase citizens purchasing power, which stimulates the economy for obvious reasons. #4 Amnesty. I will take fire here but it will increase tax revenue just by virtue of a certain portion will actually pay taxes to a certain extent. Also, it gives a certain level of people some real skin in the game. # A complete retooling of the healthcare system by virtue of opening up avenues currently closed. It's ridiculous that I can get the same or better level of care just by walking across a border to Mexico for way less than I pay here. I believe that Healthcare is like any other commodity,give a company a chance and they will find a way to get it done. Done correctly you would have clinics in Wal-Mart within a year, good care for a good price. That's just a few things off the top of my head. The pipe dream for me is a flat tax on goods and services that encourages saving,I.E., start at a certain percentage and work our way down to a more realistc one. One, it would encourage savings and it would also encourage corporations to more seriously consider price structures. There would have to be a balance, though. I got all kinds of ideas, man.

A company called SmartCare opened low cost clinics in Wal-Marts. It's a good idea. They provided low cost care, doc office visits for a flat $65, they wrote some minor scrips. With 80,000 people walking through Wal-Mart each year, I would have thought they had a fantastic idea. They couldn't control costs, and have since closed the clinics. I'm sure there will be other start-ups in this arena though.What you are speaking of in the bold is called medical tourism, and we're starting to see some carriers approve this on a very limited basis. I think there are lots of potential problems with malpractice etc, but with costs in the US where they are this would just be good business for healthcare companies. This is another field which will start to have a huge impact on our healthcare costs.

[Kenny Banya 0]

Don't make the mistake of equating volatile bearish markets with failing economy. Interestingly enough, since february, still growing. Slowly, but growing. BG and LMD? Still not wrong. Time will tell. Last I checked unemploymt was still at a manageable 6%, with the holiday season coming up. Don't worry, Kenny, I am confident there will be some ups and downs and you will poke your head around during the most obvious times but for the most part you till hide while things are good because like most you're clueless. No disrespect.

When have there been good times over the last 6 months?? I haven't been hiding, I've been here the whole time.First lets talk about unemployment:http://www.fullcontactpoker.com/poker-foru...t&p=2451864Here you said that unemployment is "only 4.7%" which isn't bad. Now unemployment is 6.1% and it still is "only" that much to you and not something to worry about? Big turnaround in only a few months. You always try to shine a good light on these numbers and don't really look into what they mean. You are a partisan hack. The fore casted unemployment rate for April 2009 is 7.1% (source: http://www.forecasts.org/unemploy.htm). Will this be an okay time for you as well? Nothing to worry about still?You like to talk about GDP/economy growth. The economy is growing at a measly 2.2% (http://indexmundi.com/united_states/gdp_real_growth_rate.html) while inflation is at 5.36%. Wow! Not even out pacing inflation.I'm not equating a bearish market to a failed economy. I'm equating a failed economy to run away inflation, run away unemployment, a $10 trillion national debt, financial institutions falling like flies, over $1 trillion in government bailouts all of which is new money being printed with the tax payer fitting the bill. The system is over. You can paint a rosy picture as much as you like, you can call me confused and naive. But you can't lie about the facts.

[Kenny Banya 0]

Alot of issues in there, but something I hope to see in the not so distant future is a move towards the reduction of spending via. streamlining businesses, and when I say business I mean whatever the government has its hands in. For example, education is one area where for whatever reason public venues just can't seem to balance budgets whilst privates/charters do a better job with less. Find out what works/doesn't work, duplicate/eradicate as needed.

I agree with this, but it is foolish to think any major party leader is going actually reduce spending in those programs...

[Nimue1995 1]

Alot of issues in there, but something I hope to see in the not so distant future is a move towards the reduction of spending via. streamlining businesses, and when I say business I mean whatever the government has its hands in. For example, education is one area where for whatever reason public venues just can't seem to balance budgets whilst privates/charters do a better job with less. Find out what works/doesn't work, duplicate/eradicate as needed. Same with Medicaid issues. The fraud that talkes place with that program is astounding. In my mind, it can't be government. It has to be independent of government in terms of who you hire to identify potential fixes. There are people whos very job is coming into companies, finding what the B.S. is and helping to eliminate that. They are contracted in, they work a spell, and they are done. They have no skin in the game except for the fact that they are payed to make whatever entity it is more efficient. Personally I don't think either candidate will do enough/is planning to do enough to pull this off, and raising taxes isnt the answer because it stunts growth. I don't think any one think anyone thing is really the answer but if I had to come up with a formula I would say this: #1 Reduce spending via. efficiency #2 Corporate tax cuts and ladder it- the more jobs you create, the more money you won't have to pay the Government. #3 Tax cuts to increase citizens purchasing power, which stimulates the economy for obvious reasons. #4 Amnesty. I will take fire here but it will increase tax revenue just by virtue of a certain portion will actually pay taxes to a certain extent. Also, it gives a certain level of people some real skin in the game. # A complete retooling of the healthcare system by virtue of opening up avenues currently closed. It's ridiculous that I can get the same or better level of care just by walking across a border to Mexico for way less than I pay here. I believe that Helathcare is like any other commodity,give a company a chance and they will find a way to get it done. Done correctly you would have clinics in Wal-Mart within a year, good care for a good price. That's just a few things off the top of my head. The pipe dream for me is a flat tax on goods and services that encourages saving,I.E., start at a certain percentage and work our way down to a more realistc one. One, it would encourage savings and it would also encourage corporations to more seriously consider price structures. There would have to be a balance, though. I got all kinds of ideas, man.

Interesting LMD. I really don't have a lot to argue with there. However the how is the problem. Plus the fact that very few politicians would be willing to take on all of those steps. And without all of them being implimented, you will have imbalance in some portion of the economy. Another problem I see is that it would tend to favor those companies that would be able to hire more people - therefore larger corporations while making small business take a hit. But since obviously economy isn't my particular strong suit either (a great deal of it is just being sensible but the intracasies tend to trip me up), I may be missing something in that or you've just not explained it fully. I don't see either candidate doing this however because it will be politicially unpopular. Another thing that both surprises and scares me a bit is the support there is for the government taking over the bad debt etc of these companies on Wall Street (if we're going to socialize a portion of our economy, I'd be for socializing something with income not more debt). What kind of percentage of our economy are we talking about here that the government is basically taking over, holding and then pushing back into the market? And what's to say that down the road the government doesn't just decide to keep control over that portion rather than marketing it? I'm confused by the fact that we seem very willing to let the government take this part of the economy over without so much as a whimper (in fact with applause) but talk about health care and everyone gets a heart attack.

[copernicus 0]

Silly parrot. If the fundamentals were strong none of this would be happening. Look what is happening because the fundamentals are weak! Tell me oh wise one, what fundamental is strong right now.I told everyone back in February that this was a failed economy. Balloon guy and Loismustdie just laughed at me. They were wrong.And what are you talking about? Inflation is at 5.37%. Not low. Very high! And growing GDP? LOL. If you want to still think you aren't in a recession, fine, I'll make out big time on your ignorance!The worse isn't even over folks.

stock market volatility != the economy

[Loismustdie 0]

Interesting LMD. I really don't have a lot to argue with there. However the how is the problem. Plus the fact that very few politicians would be willing to take on all of those steps. And without all of them being implimented, you will have imbalance in some portion of the economy. Another problem I see is that it would tend to favor those companies that would be able to hire more people - therefore larger corporations while making small business take a hit. But since obviously economy isn't my particular strong suit either (a great deal of it is just being sensible but the intracasies tend to trip me up), I may be missing something in that or you've just not explained it fully. I don't see either candidate doing this however because it will be politicially unpopular. Another thing that both surprises and scares me a bit is the support there is for the government taking over the bad debt etc of these companies on Wall Street (if we're going to socialize a portion of our economy, I'd be for socializing something with income not more debt). What kind of percentage of our economy are we talking about here that the government is basically taking over, holding and then pushing back into the market? And what's to say that down the road the government doesn't just decide to keep control over that portion rather than marketing it? I'm confused by the fact that we seem very willing to let the government take this part of the economy over without so much as a whimper (in fact with applause) but talk about health care and everyone gets a heart attack.

FNM/FRE were already government backed in a sense. The AIG thing I don't really have quite the handle on yet but as I understand it it's being taken over to be sold. I am sure at work this weekend I will get a more clear picture. I also need to do some research on this creation of an entity to house bad debt, I know it was done before but I don't know enough about it. I will soon enough. My post was mostly about ideas, but the cutting of spending I feel crazy strongly about. Companies do it all the time. It can be done.

[Loismustdie 0]

I agree with this, but it is foolish to think any major party leader is going actually reduce spending in those programs...

I don't agree with this one bit.

[Loismustdie 0]

When have there been good times over the last 6 months?? I haven't been hiding, I've been here the whole time.First lets talk about unemployment:http://www.fullcontactpoker.com/poker-foru...t&p=2451864Here you said that unemployment is "only 4.7%" which isn't bad. Now unemployment is 6.1% and it still is "only" that much to you and not something to worry about? Big turnaround in only a few months. You always try to shine a good light on these numbers and don't really look into what they mean. You are a partisan hack. The fore casted unemployment rate for April 2009 is 7.1% (source: http://www.forecasts.org/unemploy.htm). Will this be an okay time for you as well? Nothing to worry about still?You like to talk about GDP/economy growth. The economy is growing at a measly 2.2% (http://indexmundi.com/united_states/gdp_real_growth_rate.html) while inflation is at 5.36%. Wow! Not even out pacing inflation.I'm not equating a bearish market to a failed economy. I'm equating a failed economy to run away inflation, run away unemployment, a $10 trillion national debt, financial institutions falling like flies, over $1 trillion in government bailouts all of which is new money being printed with the tax payer fitting the bill. The system is over. You can paint a rosy picture as much as you like, you can call me confused and naive. But you can't lie about the facts.

I can't help those who fail to grasp something as simple as " 94% of the working population still have jobs." It's not great. I'm not happy with it. There is no doubt a bearish cycle occuring. As of yet, no failure. You can't lie about the facts, son.

[gobears 0]

From the Big Picture Blog of Barry RitholtzI am having a hard time keeping up with all of the bailouts and special facilities created for dealing with this crisis. Am I missing any? - Bear Stearns - Economic Stimulus progam - Housing Bailout Program - Fannie & Freddie - AIG - No Short selling rules - Fed liquidity programs (Term Lending facility, Term Auction facility) - Money Market fund insurance program - Special Loans for GM & Ford - New RTC type programIf you are a fan of irony, consider this: The conservative movement has utterly hated FDR, and his New Deal programs like Medicaid, Social Security, FDIC, Fannie Mae (1938), and the SEC for nearly 80 years. And for the past 8 years, a conservative was in the White House, with a very conservative agenda. For something like 16 of the past 18 years, the conservative dominated GOP has controlled Congress. Those are the facts.We now see that the grand experiment of deregulation has ended, and ended badly. The deregulation movement is now an historical footnote, just another interest group, and once in power they turned into socialists. Indeed, judging by the actions of the conservatives in power, and not the empty rhetoric that comes out of think tanks, the conservative movement has effectively turned the United States into a massive Socialist state, an appendage of Communist Russia, China and Venezuela. To paraphrase Floyd Norris, we have become Marxists, but of the Groucho, not Karl, variety . . .

[Kenny Banya 0]

I don't agree with this one bit.

Name a program...

[Kenny Banya 0]

I can't help those who fail to grasp something as simple as " 94% of the working population still have jobs." It's not great. I'm not happy with it. There is no doubt a bearish cycle occuring. As of yet, no failure. You can't lie about the facts, son.

Sigh...all those failures and you still think it is just a bearish cycle...And who cares how many people are employed. 100% of the population could be off picking beans...doesn't mean the economy is strong. Those jobs are getting worse and worse. See you are told 94%, really it is 93.9%, still have jobs, everything is okay, go back to sleep America. I look further and see that real wages have DECREASED over the last 8 years. If your job can't even pay the bills then what good is that job? You're really hanging your hat on 93.9% of the economy having jobs. Look past that number. The unemployment rate was 95% a year ago and it didn't save us from this. The 95% of the population with jobs still couldn't pay their mortgages or their credit card debt. If you live above your means you are destined to live below it!And no failure...ONLY:Bear StearnsIndyMacFannie Mae and Freddie MacLehman BrothersMerrill LynchAIGTax payers are literally taking over $1 trillion on the chin, could be well over that considering no one knows the extent on Fannie and FreddieMillions are losing their homeThe car companies are going to be bailed out soonAll within 8 months time. Time will tell. You're just trying to save face for McCain, which is pretty pathetic!Face it, this is how empires end. All great powers that have had this type of financial system has failed. It will go global.EDIT: HAHAHA I just heard on CNN from some analyst that anyone who trumpets the 6.1% is an idiot. Basically what was said that no one thinks the fundamentals are strong, who cares that unemployment is 6.1% in this environment! A little ironic...

[BigLebowski 0]

Don't make the mistake of equating volatile bearish markets with failing economy.

Volatile bearish markets....HAHAHAHAHAHASeriously, how can you sit there with a straight face and say our economy is not "failing". We are experiencing something that hasn't been experienced in generations, hopefully will end soon (although there is absolutely no indication it will), and not be experienced again. Bearish???? Seriously?

[copernicus 0]

Volatile bearish markets....HAHAHAHAHAHASeriously, how can you sit there with a straight face and say our economy is not "failing". We are experiencing something that hasn't been experienced in generations, hopefully will end soon (although there is absolutely no indication it will), and not be experienced again. Bearish???? Seriously?

Its not failing. You dont have a clue about economics if you think it is.

[CaneBrain 95]

I can't help those who fail to grasp something as simple as " 94% of the working population still have jobs." It's not great. I'm not happy with it. There is no doubt a bearish cycle occuring. As of yet, no failure. You can't lie about the facts, son.

in fairness, that unemployment # measures only people who are unemployed and is currently actively seeking employment (the bush admin has a way with fudging numbers bless them).so, that percentage does not count people who have given up or are content at the moment to live off the man.This is more than a bearish cycle. (though, it is also less than a failure). this is a bigtime financial hiccup. you cant have storied, prestigious financial firms going down in flames left and right and not be able to admit this is more than a bad cycle. But, yes, the american economy will eventually right itself (and I will be happy I own a ton of BAC stock when it does).

[copernicus 0]

Sigh...all those failures and you still think it is just a bearish cycle...And who cares how many people are employed. 100% of the population could be off picking beans...doesn't mean the economy is strong. Those jobs are getting worse and worse. See you are told 94% really it is 93.9%, still have jobs, everything is okay, go back to sleep America. I look further and see that real wages have DECREASED over the last 8 years. Do you understand that, and why, 8 years is not an appropriate period of time to judge the GWB administration on wages? If your job can't even pay the bills then what good is that job? You're really hanging your hat on 93.9% of the economy having jobs. Look past that number. The unemployment rate was 95% a year ago and it didn't save us from this. The 95% of the population with jobs still couldn't pay their mortgages or their credit card debt. If you live above your means you are destined to live below it!And no failure...ONLY:Bear Stearns how much did it cost the US? Nothing that I know of, and with the firesale price JP Morgan acquired BS for, its unlikely to cost anything. IndyMac what about it. FDIC insurance is paid for by the banks as insurance premiums. Cost to the taxpayer - 0Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac No new obligations with regard to these two entities, their stockholders and senior management are screwed not the taxpayersLehman Brothers what about it?Merrill Lynch what about itAIG Unknown impact, could very well be profitableTax payers are literally taking over $1 trillion on the chin, could be well over that considering no one knows the extent on Fannie and Freddie Amazing that you know this number when no one in the government does.Millions are losing their home so your bemoaning people losing homes that they never should have bought in the first place at the same time your criticizing the mechanism that got them those homes?The car companies are going to be bailed out soon whos going to win the Super Bowl?All within 8 months time. Time will tell. You're just trying to save face for McCain, which is pretty pathetic! This has nothing to do with McCain. Youre being ridiculous here.Face it, this is how empires end. All great powers that have had this type of financial system has failed.Since no one else has ever had this kind of financial system thats an interesting statement. It will go global. I guess even a blind horse finds water once in a while.EDIT: HAHAHA I just heard on CNN from some analyst that anyone who trumpets the 6.1% is an idiot. Basically what was said that no one thinks the fundamentals are strong, who cares that unemployment is 6.1% in this environment! A little ironic... Talk to Barney Frank. He's your economics/finance leader.

[KONGOS 0]

How can anyone here call themselves republicans and believe in the free market while at the same time support what the Fed/Gov has done in the past few weeks?? Oh, and now they banned short-selling? WHAT THE FUCK!?We aren't in Russia, are we Danny?

[copernicus 0]

How can anyone here call themselves republicans and believe in the free market while at the same time support what the Fed/Gov has done in the past few weeks?? Oh, and now they banned short-selling? WHAT THE FUCK!?We aren't in Russia, are we Danny?

Do you actually know what theyre banning and why? Do you know that most major country's market laws already permanently ban speculative shortselling? Do you know what double and triple witching days are and why the add volatility to a segment of the market that cant afford that kind of volatility? Do you realize that it has nothing whatsoever to do with "free markets"? And since when is can you conflate "republicans" with "free markets"? Neither party believes in totally free markets and for good reason...they dont work."Arent in Russia" hyperbolic garbage from someone who apparently doesnt have a clue.

[nutzbuster 7]

Oh, and now they banned short-selling?

Only some financial stocks and it's not permanent. The Gov had to do something. They were being begged to do it, and it was do this or else (some were saying) we were literally on the verge of a new Depression.Plenty of blame to go all around but truth be known it was Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton that got this monster breathing in the first place.

[Balloon guy 158]

"Arent in Russia" hyperbolic garbage from someone who apparently doesnt have a clue.

But still a good Caddyshack reference, you gotta give him that.

[Loismustdie 0]

Volatile bearish markets....HAHAHAHAHAHASeriously, how can you sit there with a straight face and say our economy is not "failing". We are experiencing something that hasn't been experienced in generations, hopefully will end soon (although there is absolutely no indication it will), and not be experienced again. Bearish???? Seriously?

Just watch.

[Loismustdie 0]

Thanks, Copernicus. Couldn't have said it better. What the negative ninnies don't see is that what has been done recently might actually prove to be profitable for the taxpayer, in the not so distant future. Like I said earlier I will have alot more to say on like tuesday after I spend my weekend on the phones with clients and researcing what Schwabs experts have to say.

[copernicus 0]

But still a good Caddyshack reference, you gotta give him that.

unintentional, most likely

[hblask 1]

What the negative ninnies don't see is that what has been done recently might actually prove to be profitable for the taxpayer, in the not so distant future.

This is making the assumption that giving the govt more money, is, in the long run, somehow good for the taxpayer. Historically, I see little evidence that a bigger govt is good for us.

[copernicus 0]

This is making the assumption that giving the govt more money, is, in the long run, somehow good for the taxpayer. Historically, I see little evidence that a bigger govt is good for us.

Not a difficult assumption to make in this case, since to do nothing would clearly send the economy into a prolonged recession...at best. And even though it would only be token amounts against whatever this costs, people like Mr. Obama's friends Raines and Johnson should be sued by the US for their compensation while running their companies into the ground. Their stockholders will sue also, but I have no sympathy for people who invest in companies so obviously mismanaged.

[hblask 1]

Not a difficult assumption to make in this case, since to do nothing would clearly send the economy into a prolonged recession...at best. And even though it would only be token amounts against whatever this costs, people like Mr. Obama's friends Raines and Johnson should be sued by the US for their compensation while running their companies into the ground. Their stockholders will sue also, but I have no sympathy for people who invest in companies so obviously mismanaged.

It's questionable that this is a good move or not. In the current context, the fed had basically committed to this action, so failing to do it now would be unfair. But in the long run, bailing out companies that screw up is bad for the economy.But what I was really referring to was the comment that this would be a net profit for the govt, and whether that is a good thing. What was PJ O'Rouke's line, something like "Giving money and power to politicians is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenagers." So a program that provides a net profit to the govt is probably bad, because it justifies more of the type of stupidity that causes this problem in the first place.