Obama's plan to improve the economy

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
I think that the capitalists should eat the poor, quite literally. There are too many poor, and removing them from the equation will help to revitalise the economy.

What do you think of my plan, Se7en?
 
I think that the capitalists should eat the poor, quite literally. There are too many poor, and removing them from the equation will help to revitalise the economy.

What do you think of my plan, Se7en?

this seems like something i could really get behind, financeguy. :up:
i agree, there are too many poor people on welfare, medicaid, and unemployment insurance. eliminating them would free up cash for the rest of us.
 
In seriousness I find it fun that Palin is attacked for the Bridge to Nowhere but that's exactly what is being proposed to get the economy out of a slump. I think when people reduce their debt load to something manageable they will have more confidence in their spending capabilities. The key is reducing government debt, consumer debt, and the trade deficit.

The personal savings rate has been at record low for too long now. Krugman can kiss my ass.:down:
 
In seriousness I find it fun that Palin is attacked for the Bridge to Nowhere but that's exactly what is being proposed to get the economy out of a slump. I think when people reduce their debt load to something manageable they will have more confidence in their spending capabilities. The key is reducing government debt, consumer debt, and the trade deficit.

The personal savings rate has been at record low for too long now. Krugman can kiss my ass.:down:

how can you equate improving roads and bridges (that do, in fact, go somewhere), modernizing schools, and expanding alternative energy sources with the bridge to nowhere?
 
how can you equate improving roads and bridges (that do, in fact, go somewhere), modernizing schools, and expanding alternative energy sources with the bridge to nowhere?

Because they are actually programs not based on demand. Roads and modernizing schools can happen anytime they need to but I think it's a buzz word for make work projects. Japan did it in the '90's and paved all over the place to prevent a recession and it didn't. The recession is happening naturally because people are over indebted. When people feel more confident and they have a handle on their debt then the economy will recover.

Obama is an FDR fan.
 
In seriousness I find it fun that Palin is attacked for the Bridge to Nowhere but that's exactly what is being proposed to get the economy out of a slump.

You have to compare the return on investment (ROI) on the different projects. The bridge to nowhere has a big negative ROI.
 
Because they are actually programs not based on demand. Roads and modernizing schools can happen anytime they need to but I think it's a buzz word for make work projects. Japan did it in the '90's and paved all over the place to prevent a recession and it didn't. The recession is happening naturally because people are over indebted. When people feel more confident and they have a handle on their debt then the economy will recover.

while there may not be a demand in the purest market sense for improved infrastructure, better schools, and alternative energy, i dare say that all three could use serious improvements and will clearly benefit the nation, at least in the long run. the bridge to nowhere would have accomplished nothing.

i agree that an economy predicated on debt spending is not sustainable, but people need good jobs to get out of debt. and that's something that is sorely lacking at the moment.
 
while there may not be a demand in the purest market sense for improved infrastructure, better schools, and alternative energy, i dare say that all three could use serious improvements and will clearly benefit the nation, at least in the long run. the bridge to nowhere would have accomplished nothing.

i agree that an economy predicated on debt spending is not sustainable, but people need good jobs to get out of debt. and that's something that is sorely lacking at the moment.

Remember that not everyone is going to lose their jobs. The middle class that has decent jobs probably will still do so but they are often the ones in huge debt so they need to unload. The recession is simply a whole bunch of fake jobs that were created by cheap debt over the last 15 years being eliminated so people can shuffle over to other areas that can grow and are based on real needs and wants. The problem is that the people who can still buy are loaded with house and car debt and they can't buy anymore. That has to naturally resolve itself which means unemployment benefits will have to be used and food banks when necessary. If Obama doesn't do too many projects it won't matter one way or another but if taxes have to be raised enormously to do Japan style projects it will mean those same people loaded with debt will have less money to reinvest in the economy and/or pay down their debt which is the capital we need for new real jobs. I'd rather have a sharp short recession than a big long one. Obama better look to his "scalpel" on the budget and start find ways to narrow the deficit so people who save can have confidence in American bonds. It's pretty scary right now.
 
You have to compare the return on investment (ROI) on the different projects. The bridge to nowhere has a big negative ROI.

I agree that the bridge to nowhere is crap but it did create fake jobs. If we are making jobs based on non-competitive government it's not going to do much to what is naturally occuring in the private sector. The U.S. is in a huge deficit and debt and blowing money on massive projects could force large tax increases more than anyone expected which slows a recovery. I mean Obama knows that and that's why he's talking about sacrifices. That's why I want people to look to themselves (especially when you have a job) and put together a budget and start eliminating variable entertainment expenses or greatly reducing them so debt payments can be larger and their stress can go down. It must be hugely stressful with a large mortgage/car payments and you have kids to feed. It's also stressful for those drawing retirement money from their dwindling investments.
 
In seriousness I find it fun that Palin is attacked for the Bridge to Nowhere but that's exactly what is being proposed to get the economy out of a slump.

I really find it hard to take anything you say regarding the economy seriously the more you post. Saving is great, that part you have down, but everything else, I don't think any economist in their right mind would agree with you...

How can you compare a bridge to nowhere to actually moving this country forward? How is alternative energy going nowhere? How are better schools and infastructure going nowhere?

But I'm seeing much more clearly the reason you defend Palin so much, you are both out of touch...
 
Remember that not everyone is going to lose their jobs. The middle class that has decent jobs probably will still do so but they are often the ones in huge debt so they need to unload. The recession is simply a whole bunch of fake jobs that were created by cheap debt over the last 15 years being eliminated so people can shuffle over to other areas that can grow and are based on real needs and wants. The problem is that the people who can still buy are loaded with house and car debt and they can't buy anymore. That has to naturally resolve itself which means unemployment benefits will have to be used and food banks when necessary. If Obama doesn't do too many projects it won't matter one way or another but if taxes have to be raised enormously to do Japan style projects it will mean those same people loaded with debt will have less money to reinvest in the economy and/or pay down their debt which is the capital we need for new real jobs. I'd rather have a sharp short recession than a big long one. Obama better look to his "scalpel" on the budget and start find ways to narrow the deficit so people who save can have confidence in American bonds. It's pretty scary right now.

you say that the middle class has decent jobs, but it is well documented that the middle class is shrinking. when manufacturing and production jobs leave this country workers generally do not move into sectors with equivalent wages. they end up taking a pay cut, likely in the service sector. and yet, the people who have been pressured by stagnant or falling wages and consistent inflation are the ones upon whom a large portion of the economy rests. you want them to save, but capitalism demands they spend. i'm not convinced that the capital generated by debt payments will be used to create good jobs with decent wages and benefits. and if recent attacks on unionized auto workers is any indication, the outlook for middle class jobs is dim. if the service sector continues to expand, and wages continue to fall, who will have the purchasing power to support capital accumulation? even financeguy has recognized the proverbial "race to the bottom." will the debt spending start anew?
 
I really find it hard to take anything you say regarding the economy seriously the more you post. Saving is great, that part you have down, but everything else, I don't think any economist in their right mind would agree with you...

Keynesian economists wouldn't agree with me. They are annoyed that Americans are starting to save.

How can you compare a bridge to nowhere to actually moving this country forward? How is alternative energy going nowhere? How are better schools and infastructure going nowhere?

I'm comparing the bridge to nowhere with Obama's infrastructure expenses at a time when people aren't sure if the U.S. can pay back it's current debt. Palin was against it after she was for it so you can blame her for that but if Obama supporters didn't like her for spending I don't see how the new government is in the right direction. I'm sure they make excuses that it's needed infrastructure but if it was needed it would already be in the budget. It sounds like a make work project to me. I don't think you got my point so I've just spelled it out. I'm not for bailouts or make work projects. Europe and Japan have got lots and they don't have a great standard of living and are in the same debt problem except with higher unemployment rates. The U.S. rate of unemployment looks good compared to many European countries during a boom. Why imitate them?

Alternative energy like nuclear power is okay but wind and solar is VERY limited in providing enough to be energy independent. Drilling off shore and in Alaska would be a more achievable energy independence or more independence. Of course this would be counter to an attitude of going into cap and trade which ultimately passes the bill onto the consumer raising their electric bills. I don't think Obama would be smart in doing that aggressively when low oil and low electricity is what people need. This is something that McCain and Palin would have to explain.

"I want people to go back to work but I don't want more energy to be expended." Only politicians would over look that. This gives me the sense that they will pay lip service to it and C02 emissions will continue since carbon based life forms can't do otherwise.

But I'm seeing much more clearly the reason you defend Palin so much, you are both out of touch...

More Alinsky tactics. :sexywink: Nice try Mr. Community Organizer. I see what you like in this thread:

http://www.u2interference.com/forums/f199/change-gov-190769.html

I think the new U2 single should be "Get on your jack boots" and they should have a song "Community Organizer social worker rampage" with some death by audio guitar riffs.

schindlers-list-3-800.jpg


See I can be inflammatory and insult Alinsky style too.:wink: If it works maybe Conservatives should lower themselves. I mean decapitated Turkeys weren't beyond PMSNBC.
 
Remember that not everyone is going to lose their jobs. The middle class that has decent jobs probably will still do so but they are often the ones in huge debt so they need to unload. The recession is simply a whole bunch of fake jobs that were created by cheap debt over the last 15 years being eliminated so people can shuffle over to other areas that can grow and are based on real needs and wants. The problem is that the people who can still buy are loaded with house and car debt and they can't buy anymore. That has to naturally resolve itself which means unemployment benefits will have to be used and food banks when necessary. If Obama doesn't do too many projects it won't matter one way or another but if taxes have to be raised enormously to do Japan style projects it will mean those same people loaded with debt will have less money to reinvest in the economy and/or pay down their debt which is the capital we need for new real jobs. I'd rather have a sharp short recession than a big long one. Obama better look to his "scalpel" on the budget and start find ways to narrow the deficit so people who save can have confidence in American bonds. It's pretty scary right now.
You simplify the issue, and admit so in this post. It's anything but simple.

I don't understand why programs to fix schools and infrastructure is a bad thing. You dismiss jobs from the equation entirely just because it's not the only problem, which does not make sense. It is not the only problem, but it is part of the problem.

This is a multi-faceted issue that requires a multi-faceted approach. Job creation through government work programs that improve our public facilities is not an inherently bad idea, if executed properly. It can help, if done right.
 
"Saving" is much too simple. That's simply not going to get the job done.

This is a complex problem that you continually try to simplify.
 
Europe and Japan have got lots and they don't have a great standard of living and are in the same debt problem except with higher unemployment rates.

Is it? :eyebrow: Which European countries are you referring to? And the second sentence is a generalization as well, with lots of important facts for the reasons of many countries neglected.
 
you say that the middle class has decent jobs, but it is well documented that the middle class is shrinking. when manufacturing and production jobs leave this country workers generally do not move into sectors with equivalent wages. they end up taking a pay cut, likely in the service sector. and yet, the people who have been pressured by stagnant or falling wages and consistent inflation are the ones upon whom a large portion of the economy rests. you want them to save, but capitalism demands they spend. i'm not convinced that the capital generated by debt payments will be used to create good jobs with decent wages and benefits. and if recent attacks on unionized auto workers is any indication, the outlook for middle class jobs is dim. if the service sector continues to expand, and wages continue to fall, who will have the purchasing power to support capital accumulation? even financeguy has recognized the proverbial "race to the bottom." will the debt spending start anew?

I'm glad you brought this up. I've posted some libertarian Austrian school responses to the onslaught of Keyensian thinking the western world is pushing on us that will help your natural assumption that capitalism is about spending. It's partially true that it involves spending but a portion should always be saved and debt is just a tool that can be abused if it's used too much. Check these out. There is a difference between Capital goods and Consumer goods and savings and investment are needed in those areas to create more supply in the economy to lower prices and increase our standard of living. Hence supply side economics. Demand is unlimited by supply is limited and we need Capital Assets to produce goods and to provide jobs to use those assets.

Markets Need Time, Not More Poison - Robert P. Murphy - Mises Institute

The Importance of Capital Theory - Robert P. Murphy - Mises Institute

http://www.mises.org/books/critics.pdf

When it comes to unions it's known that they need a deal that is competitive with Toyota, Nissan, and Honda. If the wage costs continue to be much larger than these companies then it will be hard to compete. One area I would like the unions to address is Japan and their trade barriers. That would be a good discussion. I also think the corporate tax rates need to be competitive so people want to bring companies to the U.S. If Obama raises corporate taxes then why would companies want to come to the U.S.?
 
"Saving" is much too simple. That's simply not going to get the job done.

This is a complex problem that you continually try to simplify.

It's the one area that economists don't want people to do but if you are hanging by a thread to pay off your debts it's not wise to take on more because Keynesians think you should. Krugman has made it explicit that he doesn't like the current trend for Americans to retrench. He's the Nobel Prize economist and all the rank and file economists are copying him and telling politicians to do it. I don't think it's good advice for people teetering on bankruptcy and people uncertain about their future employment status.

If the central banks raised interest rates during the MASSIVE boom people wouldn't have got into so much debt. The business cycle yo yo's too much when they let the printing presses go. Then you get socialist teachers like my Marxist teacher who looks at this period of time as the best time so that they can grow larger during a recession. He really meant it when he said it.

Protect your ass. The savings rate in the West has been too low for too long. It's hard to save for retirement. I'm narrowing the discussion to savings to highlight an area that desperately needs highlighting. Don't save to the point of starving but as we saw in the last 15 years people were making the opposite error. For those who don't have a lot of debt it doesn't apply as much to them. Savings in the economy is often not understood well because of the counter-intuitive nature of it. Certainly I'm for low interest rates during a recession but not all the time and even through a normal economy. It leads to speculation and consumer debt. Banks even send poor people credit lines of $100,000. It's like normal bankers have turned into loan sharks.
 
Is it? :eyebrow: Which European countries are you referring to? And the second sentence is a generalization as well, with lots of important facts for the reasons of many countries neglected.

France, Germany, Spain. I'm sure there are more, but those are the ones I know. In Canada when we get 6% unemployment during a boom that's considered good. In the U.S. it's an alarm bell.

There's a saying in Germany. "If you have a job you are in a union and when you're not in a union you don't have a job." It's an exageration of course but it shows how long it takes to get a job in countries like that. They also have more trade barriers though hopefully that will loosen up after the G20 meeting. Hopefully.
 
Keynesian economists wouldn't agree with me. They are annoyed that Americans are starting to save.

Yeah, that's not what I'm talking about...:huh:


I'm comparing the bridge to nowhere with Obama's infrastructure expenses at a time when people aren't sure if the U.S. can pay back it's current debt. Palin was against it after she was for it so you can blame her for that but if Obama supporters didn't like her for spending I don't see how the new government is in the right direction. I'm sure they make excuses that it's needed infrastructure but if it was needed it would already be in the budget. It sounds like a make work project to me. I don't think you got my point so I've just spelled it out. I'm not for bailouts or make work projects. Europe and Japan have got lots and they don't have a great standard of living and are in the same debt problem except with higher unemployment rates. The U.S. rate of unemployment looks good compared to many European countries during a boom. Why imitate them?
What do you mean "if it was needed it would already be in the budget"? Have you been to the US? There's a lot needed here as far as infastructure... We need to move forward, what part of that do you not get?


Alternative energy like nuclear power is okay but wind and solar is VERY limited in providing enough to be energy independent. Drilling off shore and in Alaska would be a more achievable energy independence or more independence. Of course this would be counter to an attitude of going into cap and trade which ultimately passes the bill onto the consumer raising their electric bills. I don't think Obama would be smart in doing that aggressively when low oil and low electricity is what people need. This is something that McCain and Palin would have to explain.
Oil is just a temp fix, why would anyone want to ignore other souces? Yes, as we know them now, every alternative source has it's drawbacks, but putting more focus and recources in these energies creates more jobs and promotes research in the fields, how can anyone in their right mind find that to be wrong?

The rest of the post wasn't even worth commenting on...
 
Back
Top Bottom