Obama General Discussion, vol. 4 - Page 27 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 06-08-2012, 06:10 PM   #391
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
U2DMfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: It's Inside A Black Hole
Posts: 6,637
Local Time: 11:56 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by financeguy View Post
Don't know much about the issue, but again, arguably, he is thinking of potential backers which has nothing to do with ideology but comes back to graft.
It's just a Big Business concession. That's how Washington works.
I think PF's answer really hits on some strong points.
But this is what all those Obamaniacs have spent 4 years figuring out.
"Change" w/r/t that corporatocracy was and is impossible.

The specific issue:
The mandate (mandating more business for HC insurance companies) was originally an idea started by conservative think tanks, promoted by Newt Gingrich and employed by Mitt Romney in Massachusetts.

What it is more than anything else is an AUTHORITARIAN position.
Could be Right/Left ideally, but in this context (catering to Big Business) seems to be more on the Right side of things.

A lot of semantics here, probably. I just think the idea that Obama is the caricature of 'Left' (as understood in America) is flatly absurd.
__________________

__________________
U2DMfan is offline  
Old 06-08-2012, 06:23 PM   #392
ONE
love, blood, life
 
financeguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ireland
Posts: 10,122
Local Time: 06:56 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by U2DMfan View Post
It's just a Big Business concession. That's how Washington works.
I think PF's answer really hits on some strong points.
But this is what all those Obamaniacs have spent 4 years figuring out.
"Change" w/r/t that corporatocracy was and is impossible.

The specific issue:
The mandate (mandating more business for HC insurance companies) was originally an idea started by conservative think tanks, promoted by Newt Gingrich and employed by Mitt Romney in Massachusetts.

What it is more than anything else is an AUTHORITARIAN position.
Could be Right/Left ideally, but in this context (catering to Big Business) seems to be more on the Right side of things.

A lot of semantics here, probably. I just think the idea that Obama is the caricature of 'Left' (as understood in America) is flatly absurd.
Corpotocracy or as I prefer to call it oligarchy...yes..and it's interesting that the first genuine groundroots movement in decades to react against this, the Tea Partiers, were instantly hi-jacked by the corporatists in such an expert manner that today, they, are viewed as right wing "Little America" bigots by the bien-pensant liberals on this very forum, and elsewhere.
__________________

__________________
financeguy is offline  
Old 06-08-2012, 06:26 PM   #393
Blue Crack Addict
 
Moonlit_Angel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In a dimension known as the Twilight Zone...do de doo doo, do de doo doo...
Posts: 19,256
Local Time: 11:56 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by U2DMfan View Post
Anyhow...Republicans are married to the Military Industrial Complex.
So it has become a Right-wing 'thing' in America. To be fair, these aren't modern distinctions. Most Americans associate the Left-wing with pacifist loons.
Exactly. Somehow over the years if you were hawkish and supported interventions you became seen as right-wing, if you opposed them you were seen as left-wing. Even though, as stated, one's political affiliation had nothing to do with whether or not they got us involved in conflict. Which is why it's so funny that the Democrats have always been seen as weak on national security-they've done more than their fair share in modern history of proving that to be untrue.

Quote:
Originally Posted by U2DMfan View Post
But we all know the spirit of what calling Obama a Leftie is...it's really all about income redistribution.
Bingo.
__________________
Moonlit_Angel is offline  
Old 06-08-2012, 06:35 PM   #394
ONE
love, blood, life
 
financeguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ireland
Posts: 10,122
Local Time: 06:56 PM
Both parties are married to the Milit-Ind complex - that's been the case for decades. Hilary Clinton is the biggest hawk, same with Biden at least on Israel - and those two are his most senior officials.
__________________
financeguy is offline  
Old 06-08-2012, 06:42 PM   #395
ONE
love, blood, life
 
financeguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ireland
Posts: 10,122
Local Time: 06:56 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moonlit_Angel View Post
Which is why it's so funny that the Democrats have always been seen as weak on national security-they've done more than their fair share in modern history of proving that to be untrue.
Well, ok, but that cuts both ways - Republicans are always blamed for being war mongers, at those times when the great American public, in its wisdom, decides that it wishes to retreat from foreign ventures and make peace.

Bush, lets face it, would have been toast if he didn't react to 9/11, or if he only reacted purely in a criminal justice manner. On September 12 2011, if you took a poll of attitudes of the public, it was like, lets nuke 'em. Nuke the Middle East and see what happens. In hindsight, his reaction could be seen almost, dare I say it, as relatively restrained, from some quarters. Bearing in mind Clinton was the president who ordered bombing raids to detract attention from a soiled dress. But I digress...
__________________
financeguy is offline  
Old 06-08-2012, 06:56 PM   #396
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,656
Local Time: 11:56 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by financeguy View Post
and it's interesting that the first genuine groundroots movement in decades to react against this, the Tea Partiers,
Don't be fooled, this was not a genuine grassroots movement. Although poorly managed so it may look grassroots at the beginning, it was organized by big names like Beck, Americans for Prosperity, etc and bankrolled very early on.
__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 06-08-2012, 07:03 PM   #397
ONE
love, blood, life
 
financeguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ireland
Posts: 10,122
Local Time: 06:56 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BVS View Post
Don't be fooled, this was not a genuine grassroots movement. Although poorly managed so it may look grassroots at the beginning, it was organized by big names like Beck, Americans for Prosperity, etc and bankrolled very early on.
"Bankrolled very early on" - very possibly and indeed probably, but does that not suggest entryism?

Entryism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
__________________
financeguy is offline  
Old 06-08-2012, 07:16 PM   #398
Blue Crack Addict
 
Moonlit_Angel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In a dimension known as the Twilight Zone...do de doo doo, do de doo doo...
Posts: 19,256
Local Time: 11:56 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by financeguy View Post
Well, ok, but that cuts both ways - Republicans are always blamed for being war mongers, at those times when the great American public, in its wisdom, decides that it wishes to retreat from foreign ventures and make peace.
Oh, absolutely. Both parties have been inaccurately portrayed on issues of war over the years, no question.

Quote:
Originally Posted by financeguy View Post
Bush, lets face it, would have been toast if he didn't react to 9/11, or if he only reacted purely in a criminal justice manner. On September 12 2011, if you took a poll of attitudes of the public, it was like, lets nuke 'em. Nuke the Middle East and see what happens. In hindsight, his reaction could be seen almost, dare I say it, as relatively restrained, from some quarters. Bearing in mind Clinton was the president who ordered bombing raids to detract attention from a soiled dress. But I digress...
Very true. And I am thankful that he ignored the "let's nuke everyone!" crowd, aka, the batshit insane.
__________________
Moonlit_Angel is offline  
Old 06-08-2012, 08:39 PM   #399
Blue Crack Addict
 
PhilsFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Standing on the shore, facing east.
Posts: 18,868
Local Time: 12:56 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by financeguy View Post
"Bankrolled very early on" - very possibly and indeed probably, but does that not suggest entryism?

Entryism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
It's sort of playing semantics, though. The Tea Party as we know it and almost all members know it would not exist without the Koch's.
__________________
PhilsFan is online now  
Old 06-09-2012, 02:46 AM   #400
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
U2DMfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: It's Inside A Black Hole
Posts: 6,637
Local Time: 11:56 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by financeguy View Post
Both parties are married to the Milit-Ind complex - that's been the case for decades. Hilary Clinton is the biggest hawk, same with Biden at least on Israel - and those two are his most senior officials.
The Republicans are married to it and the Democrats like to jerk it off.
Or something like that.

The Republicans earn the backing of that entire industry because they are the ones that most often delegate that money in legislation. And they also play the political patriotism game quite well. Democrats almost never beef up the military budget. But when it comes to getting into fights around the world, both parties are more than good at it. But let's face it, we are often asked to be the 'world police' and often criticized when we don't intervene.

And yeah, there are a lot of hawks in the Democratic Party. Obama could be called one as well. They are just called doves when the Republicans are trying to beat them in an election.
__________________
U2DMfan is offline  
Old 06-09-2012, 08:38 AM   #401
Blue Crack Distributor
 
Headache in a Suitcase's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Stateless
Posts: 56,371
Local Time: 12:56 PM
__________________
Headache in a Suitcase is online now  
Old 06-09-2012, 11:45 AM   #402
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 11:56 AM
Obama: "The Private Sector Is Doing Fine" | RealClearPolitics

Quote:
Question: What about the Republicans saying that you're blaming the Europeans for the failures of your own policies?

President Obama: The truth of the matter is that, as I said, we created 4.3 million jobs over the last 27 months, over 800,000 just this year alone.

The private sector is doing fine.
He as since been forced to eat those words. When I graduated in 1984 the economy was growing by 7.4%, THAT is a private sector "doing fine."
Quote:
Where we're seeing weaknesses in our economy have to do with state and local government. Oftentimes cuts initiated by, you know, Governors or mayors who are not getting the kind of help that they have in the past from the federal government and who don't have the same kind of flexibility as the federal government in dealing with fewer revenues coming in.
Quote:
"Oftentimes cuts initiated by, you know, Governors or mayors..."
Governors and mayors attempting to balance budgets as required by their constitution or newly elected to do just that, restore some fiscal sanity.

Quote:
"who don't have the same kind of flexibility as the federal government in dealing with fewer revenues coming in."
Flexibility? To what? Print money? Borrow from China? Not balance a budget, wait, not even pass a budget !!

Forget all my recent posts about Barack Obama's radical ties, that's low hanging fruit, this guy is an economic imbecile and his policies and rhetoric have paralyzed our economy.
__________________
INDY500 is offline  
Old 06-09-2012, 03:29 PM   #403
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,474
Local Time: 12:56 PM
What's paralyzed our economy is lack of stimulus and the gutting of the public sector, let alone Europe.

The deficit is essentially Saddam Hussein, and austerity Gulf War 2.

We exaggerate a problem, terrify the populace, then enact policies that benefit no one but the oligarchy.

And your enjoyment of 1984 is what precisely led to today.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 06-09-2012, 04:31 PM   #404
ONE
love, blood, life
 
digitize's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Dallas and around the Texas Triangle
Posts: 13,962
Local Time: 11:56 AM
I'm annoyed by the somewhat neo-Mercantalist attitude towards money that's so easy to find in this country, and that is really the backbone of Indy's post.

Such an attitude is fundamentally driven by a belief that, more or less, a country has a set amount of money and it can only overspend by borrowing on printing, the former of which creates the same nasty obligations as private debt and the latter of which just creates inflation. There's some truth to that, but it is not at all the end of the story.

Money creation happens through more than printing money. Under normal circumstances, investment and the fractional reserve banking system have their own money creation system of sorts. If investment and fractional reserve banking did not exist and the government had, say $1,000,000,000,000 in circulation, probably $800,000,000,000 or so of that would actually be in circulation, as people would store the other $200,000,000,000 in banks that would more or less be mattresses. Unless that money was cashed in on, for all intents and purposes, it would not be in circulation. Investment and fractional reserve banking, however, put money stored in savings into circulation. They effectively create $200,000,000,000 more than would have been in existence otherwise. When the economy starts booming, this takes off even more. The issuing of debt, for many purposes, allows money to be represented twice and used twice. The borrower has the seller's money, but the seller has a guarantee to get that money (plus some) back. And often, those guarantees are traded as not much less than money to other people in the form of bonds. Stocks and various securitized assets work more or less the same way. Money multiplies itself under good circumstances. In the process, inflation is created without the government ever firing up the printing presses, but so it growth.

In 2008, trillions of dollars of this paper wealth vanished. Much of it was based on completely absurd securitized tranches of mortgages and other assets. Sure, to an observer in hindsight, it may have been a bad idea for banks to have issued ARMs for $600,000 homes to people making $40,000 per year (probably an exaggeration, but it was pretty bad). But that's not what mattered. What mattered is that investors bought tranches and tranches of these mortgages. And as long as other investors thought they were worthwhile and the borrowers paid their minimum payments under their temporarily low interest rates and optimism for future salaries, the cycle maintained itself. In a way, a Ponzi scheme organically developed, and the creation of de facto money rested on its shoulders. When that cycle crashed (animal spirits? high oil prices? investors realizing that this may not be a good idea? all of the above and then some?), de facto money vanished.

Under the classical microeconomic approach to thinking, the apt response to this would have been instant broad-based deflation to the point where real income and prices all adjusted to be just the same and everyone went on their merry way. Well, also according to the classical micro model, none of what I just described should have happened, because investors should have been rational and should have known what was coming their way. It may be argued that government protection helped to fuel the fire, because it minimized investor losses and they knew that it would. This is a fair argument. However, it's silly to think that investors didn't suffer at all from this crash; the government just cushioned the loss. But what the classical micro modal predicted would happen is not at all what happened. Recession happened. De facto money went out of circulation. Investors lost confidence and put their money into safe assets (cash itself, US treasury bonds, safe corporate bonds, and whatnot), the layoffs began, investors lost more confidence, et cetera.

All of this happened with no change to the base money supply, but assets that were treated as de facto money and that freed up cash to circulate disappeared. And from this, another thing that shouldn't happen according to classical microeconomics happened: the economy began producing at less than its full capacity to produce. An answer I hear a lot in defense of classical micro models is that unemployment insurance and other safety net government programs disincentive employment... in other words, that this unemployment is more or less voluntary. Of course, this ignores the reality that a life on unemployment insurance and the rest of the safety net isn't exactly glamorous compared with life with the help of a good job. But this issue gets to the root of our economic problem: the United States is not producing as much as it could. Why? Largely because there isn't the demand, also known as consumer confidence, for corporations to justify investments and hiring. We may talk about regulations being an issue. And it is true that lower regulations will lead to more hiring, although lower regulations also present future problems (that 7.5% growth rate from 1984 was probably a bad thing), such as the sort of bubble that caused all of these issues in the first place. What really is needed to justify hiring is demand, but demand comes from hiring... so there's a nasty vicious cycle. To clear this up requires the insertion of new money into circulation, through debt and through printing. Printing creates inflation, yes, but in the case of the first two rounds of quantitative easing, such inflation probably just prevented deflation (which would have been really, really nasty for borrowers). What it creates, more importantly, is demand. If that demand could not be met by additional supply, at the point where the economy is producing at its structural capacity, then all that would happen is pure inflation. And even before that point, there's probably a point where the inflation consequence would be worse than the growth reward. But printing money has its place, in order to get an economy to create more. What is important is not the lump sum of money that a country has, but how much it produces. When an economy is not producing at its structural potential is when printing money is really a problem. That is where examples of disastrous hyperinflation come from... the Zimbabwes and the Wiemar Republics of the world. Any level of growth inherently creates inflation, and inflation is not always the end of the world. When de facto money evaporates, printing real money does not just create pure inflation. Putting it in the hands of consumers and investors can stop an economy's retreat away from full production. Of course, classical micro says that an economy should always be at full production, because that's what happens when people act in their own self-interest. That ignores the fact that it is only wise to spend money on employment and whatnot if everyone else is... i.e., if the economy is booming. In a recession, the economy is stuck in an equilibrium of sorts where nobody spends because nobody spends, but if every spent then things would be all fine and dandy. Getting out of that requires both replacing toxic assets with less toxic assets and spurring demand. Quantitative easing and TARP helped do the former. The latter requires spurring demand, through stimulus programs. There is no direct way to do that with printing money in America, legally, so there comes fiscal stimulus, through a variety of programs often financed through debt. Federal debt has its own money-creation effects, though. The liquidity of US treasury bonds is considered incredibly high (look at how low their yields are right now), and they are also traded as de facto money... federal debt in the United States isn't all that different from firing up the printing presses. But this response has to hit both the supply side and the demand side, or it's useless.

Sorry for the length of this... I guess, overall, my point is just that money creation through its variety of methods is not just tantamount to pure inflation. What matters to an economy is how much it produces, and that can often be spurred through money creation in the face of falling corporate liquidity and falling consumer demand. Inflation happens when demand increases because people have more money, in whatever form. But if an economy can produce more and there is demand for more, companies faced with more healthy-looking demand curves will, given the capital and potential resources (such as a bunch of laid off people to potentially hire), also produce more rather than just purely raise prices.
__________________
digitize is offline  
Old 06-09-2012, 06:06 PM   #405
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 11:56 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
What's paralyzed our economy is lack of stimulus and the gutting of the public sector, let alone Europe.
Right, because only government creates wealth.

Government spending needs to shrink so the real economy can grow and create jobs and prosperity (the opposite of austerity). Austerity is rising taxes, food and energy prices cutting into household budgets. Austerity is a stagnant job market when you are searching for employment.
Quote:
The deficit is essentially Saddam Hussein, and austerity Gulf War 2.
Current debt -- $15.7 trillion
Cost for both the Iraq and Afghanistan wars -- $1.3 trillion
The federal debt in 2000 -- $5.6 trillion.

Well Irvine, that only leaves you $8.8 trillion dollars short of a working hypothesis.
__________________

__________________
INDY500 is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:56 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com