6493 replies to this topic

[strategy]

LongLiveYorke, on Monday, August 30th, 2010, 3:05 AM, said:

It's funny that the thing he has very little control over, the economy, is the thing that most drives his chances for reelection.

the fact that we so blindly vote with the economy bodes terribly for us. the incumbent is motivated to use the short-term tools (like stimulus or tax cuts without spending reduction) to juice economic performance going into an election year. this can be catastrophically damaging if overused.my views on this are close to tyler cowen's from this podcast. he also uses the word "politicking" so he won even more points there.the great stimulus experimentI swear I'm not getting a referral bonus or anything from these guys, I just love how fair, honest, and accurate it is.EDIT: partial transcript! he goes deeper into what types of stimulus he finds acceptable in the podcast.Dr. TYLER COWEN (Economics, George Mason University): If we spend $700 billion and the economy recovers within a year, a year and a half, I would take that as serious evidence that my view is wrong. I don't think it will happen, but I would take it seriously.KESTENBAUM: That is rare for someone to say: Maybe I'm wrong. Call me back in a year and a half.BLUMBERG: It's been a year and a half, so we called him back, and...KESTENBAUM: Tyler Cowen does not think he was wrong.Dr. COWEN: If you just look at the actual outcome, I would say what we did didn't work.KESTENBAUM: The economy has been growing for about a year, but unemployment is still high and Cowen thinks the economy might be turning down again, a double dip recession.Dr. COWEN: Stimulus, for sure, it works in the short run. The thing is, what happens when you pull the stimulus away? If you simply slide back to where you were, all you've done is postpone that process of adjustment. And I think that's what we're seeing. So I view it as a kind of short-term fix that gave us some stabilizing properties but didn't really turn the economy around.

[LongLiveYorke]

strategy, on Monday, August 30th, 2010, 3:41 AM, said:

Dr. COWEN: Stimulus, for sure, it works in the short run. The thing is, what happens when you pull the stimulus away? If you simply slide back to where you were, all you've done is postpone that process of adjustment. And I think that's what we're seeing. So I view it as a kind of short-term fix that gave us some stabilizing properties but didn't really turn the economy around.

The Stimulus served to raise the troth of the financial crisis. The "bottom" would have been much farther down than it was with the stimulus.I disagree with his theory about an "adjustment" period. I mean, it's not as if there weren't enough people unemployed throughout the crisis for such an adjustment to take place. If the stimulus served to temporarily gives jobs to EVERYBODY who was unemployed, or at least a large fraction of them, then I would understand his point. But, stimulus or not, lots of people are out of work; if we didn't adjust over the last year, having or not having the stimulus wouldn't make a difference. Also, one should not discount the actual benefits of the stimulus (not just in terms of jobs, but what those jobs did). There were actual advances in infrastructure, energy, medical and physical research, and things like that which came directly from the stimulus. Not to mention the teachers jobs that were saved, which count more than normal jobs (because losing education years has a multiplier effect). But the discussion sounds interesting; I'll listen or read it if I have any time today (which I won't).

[brvheart]

LongLiveYorke, on Monday, August 30th, 2010, 4:27 AM, said:

The Stimulus served to raise the troth of the financial crisis. The "bottom" would have been much farther down than it was with the stimulus.I disagree with his theory about an "adjustment" period. I mean, it's not as if there weren't enough people unemployed throughout the crisis for such an adjustment to take place. If the stimulus served to temporarily gives jobs to EVERYBODY who was unemployed, or at least a large fraction of them, then I would understand his point. But, stimulus or not, lots of people are out of work; if we didn't adjust over the last year, having or not having the stimulus wouldn't make a difference. Also, one should not discount the actual benefits of the stimulus (not just in terms of jobs, but what those jobs did). There were actual advances in infrastructure, energy, medical and physical research, and things like that which came directly from the stimulus. Not to mention the teachers jobs that were saved, which count more than normal jobs (because losing education years has a multiplier effect). But the discussion sounds interesting; I'll listen or read it if I have any time today (which I won't).

Why should we believe you over a professor of Economics?

[strategy]

LongLiveYorke, on Monday, August 30th, 2010, 4:27 AM, said:

The Stimulus served to raise the troth of the financial crisis. The "bottom" would have been much farther down than it was with the stimulus.I disagree with his theory about an "adjustment" period. I mean, it's not as if there weren't enough people unemployed throughout the crisis for such an adjustment to take place. If the stimulus served to temporarily gives jobs to EVERYBODY who was unemployed, or at least a large fraction of them, then I would understand his point. But, stimulus or not, lots of people are out of work; if we didn't adjust over the last year, having or not having the stimulus wouldn't make a difference. Also, one should not discount the actual benefits of the stimulus (not just in terms of jobs, but what those jobs did). There were actual advances in infrastructure, energy, medical and physical research, and things like that which came directly from the stimulus. Not to mention the teachers jobs that were saved, which count more than normal jobs (because losing education years has a multiplier effect). But the discussion sounds interesting; I'll listen or read it if I have any time today (which I won't).

he is not necessarily disagreeing with the idea that the "bottom" would have been deeper without the stimulus.when he says: "So I view it as a kind of short-term fix that gave us some stabilizing properties but didn't really turn the economy around."your "bottom" comment is what he is getting at. and I think pretty much everyone with any sense of economics can agree with that statement. also, he agrees with you on the teachers! really, listen to the whole thing.to me, stimulus is an attempt to trade some productivity in good times for less pain in bad times. a good comparison I saw in a lecture some time ago: long-term unemployment charts, UK vs. france. france has really tough laws regarding how an employee can be fired and what benefits must be paid upon termination, so their long-term unemployment rate is higher. the trade-off is that unemployment swings there are much more mild.

brvheart, on Monday, August 30th, 2010, 4:37 AM, said:

Why should we believe you over a professor of Economics?

rude.

[akoff]

brvheart, on Monday, August 30th, 2010, 12:37 AM, said:

Incorrect. CBS hired someone to give an estimate based on looking at crowd photos, and as you can see below, they might not want to quit their day jobs, with that 80,000 estimate.http://www.nytimes.c...t...t=cse&scp=4The New York Times put the number at 300,000+I don't think crowd estimates at a talking-head rally matter at all. The only thing that matters is the ouster of liberals in November...and it's inevitable.

I hope so, the poor and working people including many on here really need it badly, they just don't know it.

[SweetDee]

CaneBrain, on Sunday, August 29th, 2010, 7:18 PM, said:

Yeah but there may have been some leveling as I think that SweetDee thinks that the racism elements of the Tea Party are overblown (HBlask would agree). I think it is probably overblown too and, if anything, the name Hussein dogs Obama much more than his skin color. Hating black people is so retro; hating Muslims is way more en vogue.

It's a little bit this and a little bit what Bob said. Assuming she does run, much will be made of anything that is said by anybody that in any way points out that she may appeal to any kind of racist element, like it wouldn't be the same for any other white candidate. If she likes tacos and somebody carrying a racist sign is eating tacos, she will then be labeled a racist, through no fault of her own, but that can be said for many conservative leaders. One interesting tidbit- Beck told his supporters to leave signs at home, no signs. I believe the theory was that if anyone with signs did show up with anything questionable, it could not be attributed to him. Don't know how that played out, but it was smart, considering some of the trickery that has gone down. I believe no one has still produced video to claim that 100,000 that was put up if anyone could actually show Dem leaders taking racist slurs.

[LongLiveYorke]

brvheart, on Monday, August 30th, 2010, 4:37 AM, said:

Why should we believe you over a professor of Economics?

You shouldn't, clearly. I'm an idiot. But you should listen to the professors of economics who agree with me.

[LongLiveYorke]

akoff, on Monday, August 30th, 2010, 5:44 AM, said:

I hope so, the poor and working people including many on here really need it badly, they just don't know it.

Yeah, I really hope those Republicans get more seats so they can hold up unemployment benefits fore more than just a few weeks. That'll teach the poor what's what.

[LongLiveYorke]

strategy, on Monday, August 30th, 2010, 4:40 AM, said:

your "bottom" comment is what he is getting at. and I think pretty much everyone with any sense of economics can agree with that statement. also, he agrees with you on the teachers! really, listen to the whole thing.to me, stimulus is an attempt to trade some productivity in good times for less pain in bad times. a good comparison I saw in a lecture some time ago: long-term unemployment charts, UK vs. france. france has really tough laws regarding how an employee can be fired and what benefits must be paid upon termination, so their long-term unemployment rate is higher. the trade-off is that unemployment swings there are much more mild.

Maybe I shouldn't comment too deeply without actually reading the whole thing. I'll probably agree with him. It's certainly a trade-off issue. We trade high debts later for less suffering now. That's where the argument for or against stimulus has to start. Denying that the stimulus helped now is losing the argument before you even start.

[85suited]

LongLiveYorke, on Monday, August 30th, 2010, 7:34 AM, said:

Yeah, I really hope those Republicans get more seats so they can hold up unemployment benefits fore more than just a few weeks. That'll teach the poor what's what.

That couldn't be farther from the truth... The republicans had no problem extending your unemployment - but wanted to know HOW WE WERE GOING TO PAY FOR IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!In fact the Harry Reid wouldn't even introduce Scott Brown's deficit neutral billhttp://washingtonind...-extension-bill

[CaneBrain]

akoff, on Monday, August 30th, 2010, 6:44 AM, said:

I hope so, the poor and working people including many on here really need it badly, they just don't know it.

Now who is the one who just knows best for others. You guys are going to be wildly disappointed in how little changes after November.

[strategy]

85suited, on Monday, August 30th, 2010, 7:53 AM, said:

That couldn't be farther from the truth... The republicans had no problem extending your unemployment - but wanted to know HOW WE WERE GOING TO PAY FOR IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

what is the functional difference between a tax break without a reduction in spending vs. an unfunded expenditure? we had six years of the former under complete republican control and frankly I don't remember hearing the GOP speak out about it. this argument is blatant hypocrisy. maybe YOU believe it is important to find funding, but THEY are rationalizing.I fucking love how you slip in "your unemployment." nobody in this discussion is collecting, pal.

[ShakeZuma]

strategy, on Monday, August 30th, 2010, 10:30 AM, said:

what is the functional difference between a tax break without a reduction in spending vs. an unfunded expenditure?

the ratio of cost/waste. lot more red tape in govt spending vs simple tax breaks. doesn't make it ok to provide tax breaks without the reduction in spending, but that's the difference (not that homeslice knows that though).

[akoff]

CaneBrain, on Monday, August 30th, 2010, 6:03 AM, said:

Now who is the one who just knows best for others. You guys are going to be wildly disappointed in how little changes after November.

I just vote, i don't try to force others to do what is best for them. if they are dumb enough to keep this congress in office then they get what they deserve.bottom line is the little guys always get hurt the worst...always. Unemplyment is at 9.5 percent who gets hurt the worst? interest rates are almost free but who has the hardest time getting loans? who is in the most jepardy of losing everything if and when they lose a job? when taxes get raised who's pay scale will stagnate? when jobs are eliminated which jobs will they be? If and when the Bush tax cuts are recinded who will get hurt worse, the guy going from 35 to 39 percent or the guy going from 10 to 15????it really isn't that hard to figure out. two novembers ago the american public wanted change....they got it. From what i have seen, hear and read they aren't real happy about it any more. I guess we'll see. The real test will be in 2 years.the more i see the more i dislike the Rebuplicans...all I want are secure borders, national defense, solid infrastructureand less government. the Democrats are the worst on all of these things, the repbulicans kind of suck but not as much. maybe i am becoming a teaparty guy, i dont know, but BHO and the band of thieves in office are not the solution.

[CaneBrain]

SweetDee, on Monday, August 30th, 2010, 8:27 AM, said:

It's a little bit this and a little bit what Bob said. Assuming she does run, much will be made of anything that is said by anybody that in any way points out that she may appeal to any kind of racist element, like it wouldn't be the same for any other white candidate. If she likes tacos and somebody carrying a racist sign is eating tacos, she will then be labeled a racist, through no fault of her own, but that can be said for many conservative leaders. One interesting tidbit- Beck told his supporters to leave signs at home, no signs. I believe the theory was that if anyone with signs did show up with anything questionable, it could not be attributed to him. Don't know how that played out, but it was smart, considering some of the trickery that has gone down. I believe no one has still produced video to claim that 100,000 that was put up if anyone could actually show Dem leaders taking racist slurs.

you say trickery, I say the signs speak for themselves.here is the problem for Palin: http://politicaltick...nt/#more-119857Even conservatives are on the fence and independents are not interested.

[AmScray]

LongLiveYorke, on Sunday, August 29th, 2010, 11:16 AM, said:

Nope, still the same. They (left) all look like gigantic faggots no matter what they're doing, but particularly so when making a concerted effort to look 'manly' in direct contravention of their innate, sissy personality type. To wit;... whereas Dick Cheney actually shoots guys in the face and laughs about it... and even though there aren't any pictures, I think we can all safely assume that Cheney doesn't look like *that* when afield.

[CaneBrain]

AmScray, on Monday, August 30th, 2010, 11:26 AM, said:

Nope, still the same. They (left) all look like gigantic faggots no matter what they're doing, but particularly so when making a concerted effort to look 'manly' in direct contravention of their innate, sissy personality type. To wit;... whereas Dick Cheney actually shoots guys in the face and laughs about it.

Bill Clinton has more cool in his pinky than the last four GOP presidents put together. John Kerry and Obama are giant dorks though. Obama is proof positive black people are genetically predisposed to basketball.....because if I saw someone throw a baseball like Obama did i would assume they sucked at all sports for sure.

[Balloon guy]

CaneBrain, on Monday, August 30th, 2010, 8:33 AM, said:

Bill Clinton has more cool in his pinky than the last four GOP presidents put together. John Kerry and Obama are giant dorks though. Obama is proof positive black people are genetically predisposed to basketball.....because if I saw someone throw a baseball like Obama did i would assume they sucked at all sports for sure.

Bill Clinton was in the band.In. The. Band.I saw a funny clip about the value of college sports generating personal character and maturity, as they showed clips of Reagan; football. Ford; football. Bush: Baseball. Clinton: Band.But you have touched on the reality. Clinton is an image, a picture of what we can pretend is cool when he got to be president because of Ross Perot twice. And while president, the interweb was invented, expanded and the tax dollars generated out of thin air would have made Carter look like a balanced budget president.He said it best in his own words near the end of his days as president:"I may not have been the best president, but I can guarantee you I had the most fun"And in the end, the last recorded words he said were when he commented on how Obama would have been getting him and Kennedy coffee just a few years ago, he shows that he really never was what you guys pretended he was. He was a self-serving womanizer with no regards for anyone but himself.

[Balloon guy]

CaneBrain, on Sunday, August 29th, 2010, 1:10 PM, said:

The "random" scientists used shots from the air to calculate their numbers. Fairly certain, a company that specializes in this stuff will have thought of more than Glenn Beck.Thank you for beautifully illustrating the marriage of distrusting sciencey-liberals and a wild, persecution complex that is the tea party.It's easy to deflect criticism when you have convinced yourselves any detractors are out to get you for X,Y and Z reasons.Nobody is worried about anything; the 2nd conservatives get back in any sort of power they won't get to rely on negativity anymore and the pendulum will swing.Oh, and the reason they can't get anyone to believe he is not a Muslim is because stupid people will believe what they want to believe no matter what evidence is presented to the contrary. It's this same lack of critical thinking that has lead to a conclusion that Palin being out for the money and Hannity being full of hot air, and glenn Beck being a wacko AND Obama's numbers are getting worse can't all be true. They are not mutually exclusive and in my opinion they are all true.

I have never heard of ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, FOX etc ever hiring a scientific study to calculate the numbers on the mall. Ever.They always trust the Mall police because they guesstimate the numbers pretty accurately.Why would ABC want to skew the numbers down/ They are supposed to be reporters of the news, not creators of the news they want to be.Kind of similar to the recent poll about Obama being a muslim. They are paying to try to create the news that they want to report.And that is why we no longer care what they say, they can't be trusted with the news.Fox News; They report, You decide.

[CaneBrain]

Balloon guy, on Monday, August 30th, 2010, 11:57 AM, said:

I have never heard of ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, FOX etc ever hiring a scientific study to calculate the numbers on the mall. Ever.They always trust the Mall police because they guesstimate the numbers pretty accurately.Why would ABC want to skew the numbers down/ They are supposed to be reporters of the news, not creators of the news they want to be.Kind of similar to the recent poll about Obama being a muslim. They are paying to try to create the news that they want to report.And that is why we no longer care what they say, they can't be trusted with the news.Fox News; They report, You decide.

oh.