All Forums > General Discussion > Non-Sports > If You Are Still An Undecided Voter . . .
11/5/2012 5:13 PM
Posted by silentpadna on 11/5/2012 4:49:00 PM (view original):
You've shown correlation.  Not causation.  While I believe there is a (weak) case to be made for stimulus, in economic terms this does not show the opportunity cost of other alternatives.  This "recovery" is jobless.  There have been many opportunities to allow markets to flourish, particularly with respect to energy that this administration is completely blocking.  Where the "recovery" is really happening is in places like North Dakota, where jobs follow opportunity and where government is not standing in the way.  Off shore (lack of) drilling, (lack of) drilling on domestic public lands, blocking the Keystone Pipeline, stepping on the necks of coal workers are all things that this administration has contributed to the recovery. 

You want to find real stimulus, go back to the Kennedy and Harding/Coolidge tax cuts.  Look at what happened to treasury receipts and share of the burden.  The economy boomed with the rich paying higher shares in each case.  Same with the Reagan and Bush cuts.

The Keynesian model (of demand-side and goverment spending) works well in theory.  The supply-side model works better - and has in practice.
I think you're also showing correlation with tax cuts and not necessarily causation.
11/5/2012 5:29 PM
Posted by toddcommish on 11/5/2012 5:12:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 11/5/2012 4:01:00 PM (view original):
Posted by toddcommish on 11/5/2012 2:40:00 PM (view original):
And he's had four years to define his economic direction... and provided bupkus.

If your college head coach had four years to build a competitive team, and failed as badly as Obama has, HE'D BE FIRED.  And should be.
Would he be fired if the previous coach had cut all the star players and then another team legally blocked him from signing any big recruits?
You've really drunk all the liberal kool-aid, haven't you? 

Let's say Bush was a crummy economic president, who spent like a drunken sailor.  Obama hasn't changed any of the ruinous policies of the Bush administration.  If anything, he's exacerbated the problem by spending even more money that he isn't collecting. 

Basically, Obama has (economically) been Bush with a tan and a better speechwriter and the benefit of a friendly media.
Spending isn't what caused the crash and spending isn't slowing the recovery.


11/5/2012 5:50 PM
Posted by jvford on 11/5/2012 5:13:00 PM (view original):
Posted by silentpadna on 11/5/2012 4:49:00 PM (view original):
You've shown correlation.  Not causation.  While I believe there is a (weak) case to be made for stimulus, in economic terms this does not show the opportunity cost of other alternatives.  This "recovery" is jobless.  There have been many opportunities to allow markets to flourish, particularly with respect to energy that this administration is completely blocking.  Where the "recovery" is really happening is in places like North Dakota, where jobs follow opportunity and where government is not standing in the way.  Off shore (lack of) drilling, (lack of) drilling on domestic public lands, blocking the Keystone Pipeline, stepping on the necks of coal workers are all things that this administration has contributed to the recovery. 

You want to find real stimulus, go back to the Kennedy and Harding/Coolidge tax cuts.  Look at what happened to treasury receipts and share of the burden.  The economy boomed with the rich paying higher shares in each case.  Same with the Reagan and Bush cuts.

The Keynesian model (of demand-side and goverment spending) works well in theory.  The supply-side model works better - and has in practice.
I think you're also showing correlation with tax cuts and not necessarily causation.
To a point that's true, but it's also true that the GDP followed more strongly and treasury revenues then followed followed GDP.  In theory, both can have positive effect, but as I read the data, the supply side model has had a strong correlation with respect to both GDP (the major effect) and the treasury revenues (the effect of the effect so to speak).
11/5/2012 5:53 PM
Posted by bad_luck on 11/5/2012 4:55:00 PM (view original):
Posted by silentpadna on 11/5/2012 4:49:00 PM (view original):
You've shown correlation.  Not causation.  While I believe there is a (weak) case to be made for stimulus, in economic terms this does not show the opportunity cost of other alternatives.  This "recovery" is jobless.  There have been many opportunities to allow markets to flourish, particularly with respect to energy that this administration is completely blocking.  Where the "recovery" is really happening is in places like North Dakota, where jobs follow opportunity and where government is not standing in the way.  Off shore (lack of) drilling, (lack of) drilling on domestic public lands, blocking the Keystone Pipeline, stepping on the necks of coal workers are all things that this administration has contributed to the recovery. 

You want to find real stimulus, go back to the Kennedy and Harding/Coolidge tax cuts.  Look at what happened to treasury receipts and share of the burden.  The economy boomed with the rich paying higher shares in each case.  Same with the Reagan and Bush cuts.

The Keynesian model (of demand-side and goverment spending) works well in theory.  The supply-side model works better - and has in practice.
What alternatives? We know there was a collapse of demand. We know that tons of capital was sitting idle. We know the stimulus was financed through debt, not tax increases. Any opportunity cost will be in the future, when that debt is paid back.

Tax cuts are a form of stimulus.

The supply side has been thoroughly discredited.

Yes, tax cuts are a form of stimulus.  They are supply side.   And they have worked each time they've been tried (on the 4 times they've been done on an across the board manner).  Please explain how it has been "thoroughly discredited", and by whom...

This should be interesting.
11/5/2012 5:59 PM
As for an opportunity cost - the example I gave before about energy is exactly that.  Get out of the way of supplying energy cheaper and perhaps people spend more discretionary income because they have it available as opposed to having gas prices crush them - they've more than doubled since the '08 election.  When goods and services are provided more efficiently, it allows demand for these to follow in a natural way.  More discretionary speinding by consumers helps create more demands for goods and services, which creates more jobs and that leads to more growth.  Let the markets work.  (Neither party does that well enough, but the current president is a central planner through and through and that fails everywhere it's tried).
11/5/2012 6:01 PM
Tax cuts are Keynesian also.

Even if supply side worked, the recession was caused by a lack of demand. Prices were  decreasing because there was more supply than demand.

Partisan:
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/economy/news/2012/08/01/11998/the-failure-of-supply-side-economics/

Non-partisan:
http://www.epi.org/blog/supply-side-abject-failure/


11/5/2012 6:07 PM (edited)
Posted by silentpadna on 11/5/2012 5:59:00 PM (view original):
As for an opportunity cost - the example I gave before about energy is exactly that.  Get out of the way of supplying energy cheaper and perhaps people spend more discretionary income because they have it available as opposed to having gas prices crush them - they've more than doubled since the '08 election.  When goods and services are provided more efficiently, it allows demand for these to follow in a natural way.  More discretionary speinding by consumers helps create more demands for goods and services, which creates more jobs and that leads to more growth.  Let the markets work.  (Neither party does that well enough, but the current president is a central planner through and through and that fails everywhere it's tried).
Gas prices were over $4 most of Bush's presidency. Then the world economy crashed and gas prices fell because of lack of demand.

You're drowning in Rand.

EDIT: what extra discretionary income (your 2nd line)?

11/5/2012 6:42 PM
Posted by bad_luck on 11/5/2012 6:07:00 PM (view original):
Posted by silentpadna on 11/5/2012 5:59:00 PM (view original):
As for an opportunity cost - the example I gave before about energy is exactly that.  Get out of the way of supplying energy cheaper and perhaps people spend more discretionary income because they have it available as opposed to having gas prices crush them - they've more than doubled since the '08 election.  When goods and services are provided more efficiently, it allows demand for these to follow in a natural way.  More discretionary speinding by consumers helps create more demands for goods and services, which creates more jobs and that leads to more growth.  Let the markets work.  (Neither party does that well enough, but the current president is a central planner through and through and that fails everywhere it's tried).
Gas prices were over $4 most of Bush's presidency. Then the world economy crashed and gas prices fell because of lack of demand.

You're drowning in Rand.

EDIT: what extra discretionary income (your 2nd line)?

Wrong again.

11/5/2012 6:48 PM
You're right. I was remembering SoCal prices. Nationally, they were lower. But the point remains, gas wasn't cheap because of some supply side magic and then went up because of Obama. They were already up, then crashed with the global economy, and then went back up.
11/5/2012 7:33 PM
There's an NHL strike on, and you are worried about something as trivial as your leadership for the next 4 years?
11/5/2012 7:44 PM
Posted by deathinahole on 11/5/2012 7:33:00 PM (view original):
There's an NHL strike on, and you are worried about something as trivial as your leadership for the next 4 years?
Should this go in the DUMB IDEA thread?
11/5/2012 7:49 PM
I'm still trying to figure out how to copy and paste a whole trade first. Then me.
11/5/2012 9:23 PM
Posted by bad_luck on 11/5/2012 6:48:00 PM (view original):
You're right. I was remembering SoCal prices. Nationally, they were lower. But the point remains, gas wasn't cheap because of some supply side magic and then went up because of Obama. They were already up, then crashed with the global economy, and then went back up.
AND Obama did nothing to bring the prices back down. He had plenty of chances. Like allowing the Keystone pipeline to proceed. You have to remember he doesn't want cheap gas. It will ruin his big plan for green energy and make all the stimulus money he poured into those programs be even more worthless.

You don't need a college degree in Economics to know that people who are spending huge amounts of their paychecks to fill their gas tanks won't have as much money to spend on other things which would help revive the economy yet Obama was either blind to that or too stupid to do it. That is the big difference between him and Romney. Romney knows that the sooner we can increase our own oil production, become more energy independant, and lower gas prices, the sooner and better are economy will recover.
11/5/2012 9:36 PM
Our oil exports are at an all time high. Our production is just fine.
11/5/2012 9:37 PM
Allegedly domestic demand is low...so they export to where they can get more money.
of 5
All Forums > General Discussion > Non-Sports > If You Are Still An Undecided Voter . . .

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

Popular on WhatIfSports site: Baseball Simulation | College Basketball Game | College Football Game | Online Baseball Game | Hockey Simulation | NFL Picks | College Football Picks | Sports Games

© 1999-2014 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.