QE3?
Offline First quarter GDP was revised down to 0.4% mostly because business investment was dramatically down from the estimated annualized rate of $52.4 billion to $16.4 billion. Economists are "surprised" as usual. The second quarter growth rate was an anemic 1.3%, which will also probably be estimated down in the future. Inflation has continued to increase at "higher than expected rates" even using the governments fucked up methodology of not including food or fuel (both of which are the essential products a human needs to live). Again, "economists" are "surprised"
So now what? That idiot, Ben Bernanke is talking about QE3*, because obviously QE1 and QE2 worked so wonderfully...... About the only thing QE is good for is the stock market and commodities because it tends to lead to hedging, higher commodity prices and a weaker dollar. How long are we going to continue this insanity? How long will we continue to listen to these "expert economists" who are constantly "surprised" that doing the same thing over and over doesn't produce different results?
QE works like morphine. It increases the monetary supply and temporarily makes the financial market feel richer. Sure, the stock market will go up for a bit, but when the QE wears off and is absorbed into the economy the weakness of our economy will resurface. It is sort of like taking morphine when you have a broken leg, it might make you feel better but if you walk around your going to cause more long term damage. It is simply an extension of the addiction we had to low interest rates throughout the 90's that brought us to this mess.
If you want to improve the economy, you have to provide a climate that encourages businesses to invest and hire. Right now, business investors are scared. Whether you agree with them or not, they view the current administration as anti-business. Investors are hesitant to invest in new enterprises because
1. We know that the tax burden is going higher. Our deficit is growing, our debt is growing and sooner or later it has to be payed back. It is clear that very few in DC are even the slightest bit serious in cutting government spending, that means that within the next 5 years or so higher taxes will probably come down the pike, we just don't know how much.
2. We know that Bamacare is going to cost us a bunch of money but have no idea exactly how much. A lot of Bamacare law has "at the secretaries discretion" and the secretaries decisions can have a massive effect on how much cash needs to be on hand to cover healthcare costs. Any business large enough to face having to deal with Bamacare needs to have cash on hand to cover the costs or they will be faced with having to take out debt to cover payroll, fire employees or go out of business. Smart businesses are preparing now by building up large cash reserves and will continue to do so until the exact cost of Bamacare to businesses are known.
3. Subsidies. Why bother risking your own money in investing in a business and risk losing everything when you can simply sit around, wait for a government subsidy and risk the tax payers dollar? (Which you will naturally be more willing to gamble with.) If your sole goal is to make personal money, it makes more sense to spend your money lobbying congress to get your piece of whatever stimulus is passed next or to get "waivers" from government regulations. Why invest in an attempt to make a profitable business in an uncertain economy when you can simply collect from the government, make a half assed attempt and pocket the money?
4. Government interference in the marketplace. Whether you're Boeing attempting to build a factory in a state that Bama & Co. don't approve of or a coal miner who can't get a mine started because environmentalists block the permits (after you have already invested significant money), a car company that doesn't build cars "green" enough, or a hotelier in Las Vegas who has the President saying people shouldn't come to your town or someone in the private jet industry who finds that their consumers are ostracized government involvement in the market place is at extremely high levels. It is difficult to predict which industry is going to be targeted for more regulation, which will be attacked on national tv and which the government is going to decide to get involved in by "bailing out" your competition. When any one of these things can change a profitable investment into a loss, it makes investors more cautious.
Steve Wynn probably said it best,
I'm telling you that the business community in this country is frightened to death of the weird political philosophy of the President of the United States. And until he's gone, everybody's going to be sitting on their thumbs.
I'm afraid to do anything in the current political environment in the United States. You watch television and see what's going on, on this debt ceiling issue. And what I consider to be a total lack of leadership from the President and nothing's going to get fixed until the President himself steps up and wrangles both parties in Congress...
I'm saying it bluntly, that this administration is the greatest wet blanket to business and progress and job creation in my lifetime...
Those of us who have business opportunities and the capital to do it are going to sit in fear of the President. And a lot of people don't want to say that. They'll say, "Oh God, don't be attacking Obama." Well, this is Obama's deal, and it's Obama that's responsible for this fear in America.
The guy keeps making speeches about redistribution, and maybe we ought to do something to businesses that don't invest or holding too much money. We haven't heard that kind of talk except from pure socialists. Everybody's afraid of the government, and there's no need to soft peddling it, it's the truth.
When the people fear the government there is tyranny, when the government fears the people there is liberty.
Business people who are not well connected are afraid of their government. And until that problem is rectified, our economy will remain weak.
*For those who don't know QE is quantitative easing and is a technique used by the federal reserve to create money out of thin air and inject it into the financial markets by purchasing US treasuries.
If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X
- Login to post comments
1. The larger corporations are paying nil to negative taxes - how much friendlier would you like to be? Extend tax exempt status to business as they do with churches (and yes tax free churches is a dumb move)?
2. The tax burden is going higher on the middle class and below. Cutting spending should only be part of the solution (not the entire solution). Increasing revenue by taxing the people and corps that have currently have control of the bulk of the money would also be a good idea.
3. Was "Obamacare" okay Romney originally proposed it? I also wish people would quit confusing what Obama wants with a healthcare plan - it's a way to grow the health insurance industry plain and simple. Medicare for all paid for by stopping the damn wars and raising taxes on the wealthiest - that's a health care plan.
4. We stand in full agreement on subsidies.
5. I don't see monopolies and collusion to keep new businesses out as a business/investment friendly idea so I believe there has to be some government involvement in the marketplace.
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
My point is that regardless of the current tax burden, the tax rates will go up. It is an expense that an investor has to factor for when determining whether or not a particular company is a good investment. Right now, we have no clue how high those rates are going to be. Most businesses take 3-5 years to start making a solid profit, in 3-5 years it is a very safe bet that taxes will be higher and given the recent debt deal that makes virtually no cuts in spending, it is safe to say that taxes will be much higher on everyone. Expectations that tax rates will be higher when your new business finally makes a profit = less incentive to invest. Even if you raise taxes, businesses would be more secure if you simply set a tax rate and stuck by it. If you know the tax rate is 50% you can choose whether or not to deal with it. When you have no idea whether it will be 15% or 75%, you can't factor it in. That makes investment more risky and uncertain.
No. Romney is another politician dumb ass. But my point here is really intended to be more financial than an attack on Bamacare. The bottom line is that Bamacare will lead to higher expenses for payroll. Business owners will have to pay that bill. The problem is that we don't know how much the bill will be, so smart business owners are saving large amounts of cash and keeping a larger percentage of their assets liquid. Once businesses know exactly what the costs will be, it can be factored in and integrated. Until then, many businesses will have the attitude that it is better safe than sorry and will sit on cash.
Some involvement is very different from what we have now.
If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X
Agreed - we need to move up from "almost none" to "some".
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
I was kindof with you with the Q3 up to this point. Of course, you had to prove me wrong and say something stupid.
First of all, tax burden is going higher in what bill? In what legislation? In the 2.5 trillion of cuts that will be 100% spending cuts, no matter what anyone does?
Second, the taxes do NOT affect business - they are taxes on profit, if you can make money, you do it. You think business would avoid profit if there was any? Because the taxes are high? What is this third grade fake economics bullshit? Did you learn this playing monopoly?
Third, the cuts are why the businesses are not investing - if the poor and middle class don't have money, who is going to buy the product? The rich don'r spend more when they earn more, middle class and poor DO. I can't believe I have to tell you this.
That one is half-correct - small businesses are getting fucked, major businesses are taking the bank from the govt and you are being fed bullshit propaganda from big business that ironically is correct on slaughtering small business, but is really just there to justify further slaughter of small business and feeding of big business. Single payer is the only option that makes a lick of sense.
Now you're on the right track. Just need to realise that what you call 'business' is actually government with a different name. They run the government and regulate themselves.
Back to fantasy land... you are on the side of big business selling you bullshit Ayn Rand asocial ideas.
Logic is a systematic method of coming to the wrong conclusion with confidence.
Tax increases haven't been passed yet, but it doesn't take a genius to realize they will happen sooner or later. Business owners are always planning on the long term. Promises not to raise taxes in the next 2-3 years mean nothing when a new investment can easily take 5-10 years to return a profit.
Yes, taxes DO affect business. When I am investing my money, I have a myriad of choices where to put that money. I can invest in a new business, shore up a current one, invest in commodities, keep it liquid (cash) or invest over seas. When an investor sits down to calculate their expected return on investment, taxes are calculated into that figure. Both taxes on the business that might force higher prices and therefore reduce demand, and personal taxes on the projected profits. Changes in the tax rates can greatly affect how much net profit an investor gets from a venture, and it would suck to tie up a massive sum of money only to find out that changes in the tax law means it would have been more profitable to do something else. So many investors are taking a "wait and see" attitude. I know this because I am one and know many other people who are as well. The bottom line is that tax increases reduce the potential profitability of an investment and that is part of the calculation, if the expected profitability gets low enough, an investor might decide to do something else with the cash.
The spending "cuts" have nothing to do with the lack of business investment and it is incredibly ignorant to say so. First of all, the so called cuts were just passed, businesses have been holding onto larger cash reserves for over a year now. Second, they aren't really cuts. No actual funding has actually been reduced, only projected funding of what they might spend in the future. And anyone who thinks that future congresses are going to follow the edicts of this congress is fooling themselves. I'll believe the cuts when I actually see government agencies getting less money than they got the previous year. So far, total government spending has gone up every year and I suspect that trend isn't changing any time soon.
If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X
Rick Perry agrees with you. As you are allied with a major source of Texas' economic woes, I'm not sure how seriously to take you.
It's hard for me to accept a solution from someone who is part of the problem.
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
Exactly which economic woes are you referring to? In case you haven't noticed, the whole country is in recession.
If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X
Thought I'd specified Texas which had a crappy economy during the recent burst of prosperity the rest of the country experienced. Gov. Goodhair is not known for his economic prowess. Giving tax breaks to oil business who sell their products to improve other countries' economies comes to mind.
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
Exactly what about the Texas economy is "crappy" that isn't crappy everywhere else? Texas is pretty much average by most measures such as unemployment and average income. It is #1 in exporting and is perhaps most notable in that its GSP grew every year from 2005-2009. It shrunk slightly 2009-2010 and is expected to have grown 2010-2011. Texas participated less in the recession than most states, and is responsible for more new jobs than any other state. It isn't even close.
So exactly what is crappy about it that could be attributed to the ideas I have suggested in this thread? Unless you can point to specific numbers that are bad and how they tie into my argument above your rhetoric is pointless and I suspect has more to do with a general dislike of Perry rather than any hard evidence that the arguments I outlined above don't work. I suspect you are simply trying to get me into an argument over Perry rather than the policies. I'm not really interested in arguing for the man as I have no intention of voting for him. But if you can show how the ideas I outlined above somehow led to a "crappy" economy in Texas, I would be interested.
If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X
You need to look a tad more closely at Perry's version of the "Texas miracle"
http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/magazine/90524/rick-perry-economy-gop-texas
Stimulus plan worked as intended
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/07/business/economy/07stimulus.html
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/10_16/b4174028669540.htm
But hey - if you want him as your economic champion...
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
Ok... do you have any data? Or just articles written by dimwits? Lets see, article #1 argues that unemployment grew "at a faster rate in texas". As things stand, Texas has an 8.2% unemployment, New York 8.0% and Mass 7.6%, virtually no difference especially since Texas has historically been at a disadvantage because of its relatively large influx of immigrants (legal and illegal). Texas has to add more jobs per month to maintain its unemployment rate. Even so, its unemployment is below the national average. Like I said, it is average, not "crappy". The states that are doing great are ND, NE, SD, NH, OK, VT and WY- all states that are following economic policies similar to what I am suggesting. Unfortunately, none of their governors are running for President.
Also that piece of shit article states that the average income is "below California's". No shit. Have you ever been to California? The COL is ridiculous. Having 100k in California is not the same as having 100k in Texas. Texas is on the short list of cheapest states to live in. When you factor in COL, Texas is usually in the top ten or close to it, while California is in the bottom 10.
So while calling it the "Texas miracle" might be an exaggeration, the Texas economy has done ok through the recession.
And the stimulus worked? Don't make me laugh. I thought even Bama had given up on that claim. Now, I will give you a break since you are probably not as much of an economics nerd as I am but the BEA recently released revised GDP numbers for 05-present. It doesn't look good. http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/national/gdp/gdpnewsrelease.htm
Also, we were told that unemployment wouldn't go above 8%. It went up, and has remained substantially worse, especially if you include the underemployed and people who have simply given up looking for work. Claims that the stimulus worked "as expected" are absurd on their face. The best defense of the stimulus is "It would have been worse" A claim that has no evidence and doubtful since the economy has been reacting exactly as opposing economists predicted.
Even using the CBO's best numbers of the stimulus creating 3.6 million jobs (an absurd number imo but lets give Bama the benefit of the doubt). That is $228k per job (that includes "jobs saved" not just new jobs). http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/120xx/doc12074/02-23-ARRA.pdf Their worst case scenario is 1.3 million jobs which is a cost of $586k per job.
Give me $228k and I can hire a hell of a lot more than one person. That is enough to hire 4 people and pay all of them hire than average salaries for a full year. And remember, that is using the CBO's best case numbers. You call that a success????
And to the point of this thread, business investment has been substantially down. Do you have an alternative explanation as to why?
If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X
Business investment has been down because businesses want to go places where they don't have to pay taxes and they can pay cruddy wages to their employees. Here in America, they pay little (if any) taxes but they still have to pay their employees. It's not a living wage but it is far more than they want to pay.
Do I think Obama has done too much? No. Do I believe as you do that he should do nothing and let the market take care of itself? Also no. The truth is somewhere in between. I'm one of those silly bastards that believe that cutting spending and raising revenue is far more effective than cutting spending and cutting revenue.
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
Oh goody, the "living wage" argument. Can you tell me what a living wage is? I have asked many times, and thus far no one has given me a definition (except CJ).
As far as dealing with the budget deficit a combination of cutting spending and raising revenue may end up being the only answer. But that is a separate issue. As you note business will go places they pay fewer taxes; actually they will go anywhere they make the most profit, taxes simply being one factor in that equation. So you have to accept that higher taxes will have a negative effect on business investment to some extent even if in the end it is necessary to do so in order to balance the budget.
You will note that nowhere in my argument did I suggest we cut taxes. I simply pointed out the effects that the likelihood of tax increases are having on investors. Even if you raise taxes, it would probably be beneficial to business investment to set the rate so we know exactly how much tax we will be paying and how it will be collected. It is the uncertainty that leads investors to the wait and see attitude. If a comprehensive budget plan was passed that actually balanced the budget, investors would be able to accurately calculate the risks/rewards. Right now, we can't. We don't know if taxes will be raised on income, capital gains, fees , a VAT or some other method. All we know is that it is increasingly likely taxes will be raised somewhere. Even a plan that includes tax increases would be better than what we have now. Right now, we have no plan and the longer we wait, the more painful the solution will be.
But get back to me on the living wage. I am really curious if I am paying my employees enough by your definition.
If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X
CJ's works. I like the definition of a living wage which states that you should be paid enough to live comfortably (not really well off, not living hand to mouth) for the area in which you live. It should be set at the state and municipality level - not by the feds (as you fear) nor by the businesses (as it is now). I wonder about your employees as well (especially if you threaten their jobs if they don't answer your way).
What you're doing is pointing out the effects of tax increases on investors in a vacuum. Raising a tax on a business that currently has a zero or negative tax rate would have a trivial effect. The hesitancy is not from the people paying the taxes but those who don't and would like to keep it that way.
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
Well according to CJ's definition virtually every company in the country pays a "livable wage". The results that were provided by the website she had were very close to the minimum wage, and in some areas below minimum wage. Which, as I pointed out in another thread, is far below market value for the majority of jobs. And I can honestly say that every one of my employees makes a "livable wage" and most substantially more. According to the calculator living wage here is $8.35/hr, McDonalds pays that much. Minimum wage is $7.40 in Ohio. So how do you justify your argument that businesses don't pay a "living wage" when most do?
I never threaten an employees job for anything other than a lack of job performance. Generally, I don't handle employees myself, I try to invest in business models that don't require me and prefer to leave employee management to others. I did almost lose it on one employee who told me she was going on food stamps (this particular employee made $18/hour over twice the "livable wage" and refused to work extra hours we really needed to get a project done on time) but I refrained from firing her because I didn't want to step on my business partners toes. Sometimes you have to fight with someone you invest in but you really need to choose those battles carefully.
Really? I pay taxes, a lot of them and I am hesitant. Most people I find on my side politically also pay a boatload of taxes. Generally, I find that those who don't pay significant taxes are the ones who love to preach that everyone needs to pay their "fair share". The effect of any tax depends greatly on its size and how it is applied. If you tax someone 1% more it is unlikely to have any effect, if you tax them 50% more it will have a much larger effect.
If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X
Comparing Ohio and Indiana is much like comparing apples and dinosaurs. I live in Indiana - what you describe is not happening here.
Generally I find that corporations are paying a zero or negative tax rate - your logic says they should be yelling the loudest about paying a fair share. Are you a large corporation? If not, I'm not talking to you.
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
Dimwits employed by the pseudo-journalistic (NYT) and by think tanks (TNR).
Lets link some articles from motherjones.com and dailykos.com, ffs.
“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)
I love you guys. their dimwits because (gasp! horrors!) you disagree with them.
Not a single dispute of the facts - funny how that works.
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
http://www.livingwage.geog.psu.edu/counties/18071
Jackson county Indiana- living wage $7.15 legal minimum wage $7.25.
Elkhart county living wage $8.27
Tipton $8.10
Owen $6.90
Martin $6.67
Looks pretty similar to me. Maybe I was just lucky in randomly selecting counties.
If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X
I was never inclined to approve of their employers and if they (New York Times and The New Republic) ever write something that is friendly towards the right of wing, space and time will implode.
You're telling me you wouldn't object to me posting a link to World Net Daily on the grounds of well-known bias, without regards to whatever factuality may be contained within? I find that impossible to believe.
In your unrelated favor, Rick Perry is a dumbass on finances and budgets. He is conservative only on social issues... like his predecessor Dubya.
“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)
Facts have no bias. The interpretation is where the bias comes in.
The only way that facts can have a bias is if they are tweaked to the point where they are no longer facts but are claimed as such.
I don't object to any source (regardless of ideology) I can look at for myself. Why do you have a problem with doing that for yourself?
What you find impossible to believe I give less than a damn about.
You say that about Perry but you agree on his economic position on QE? Interesting...
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
Be that as most of it may be, your first sentence or two makes the painful assumption that a biased media joint offers facts that aren't diluted with propaganda and opinion such that it becomes... highly difficult to differentiate between the three. Counterproductively so, imo. As for what you claim to object or not object to -a claim that is equally difficult to verify at best, given present circumstances- why am I supposed to care either way? I gave my opinion, and in absence of evidence to the contrary, I stand by it. Perhaps you are just that much more patient than I am, but given an entire industry (journalism) whose business is almost entirely mixing opinion carefully edited with scant fact, I see little point in the amount of effort involved with sifting the two apart. And yes, both sides of the aisle are guilty of this form of sensationalism.
At that, I'm at a loss for why you took exception to this one post I made about how both websites/newspapers have their fair share of political bias, and dishonestly attempted to paint my objections as simply "disagreeing with them"... aside from the sheer triviality of this whole fiasco, it was not even addressed to you to begin with!
Where the hell did you get that from, besides your rear end of course? Yeah, if you respond with something other than "WHY U MAD BRO?!" or "You have been trolled", I'll be sorely disappointed.
“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)
I must have missed the "facts" in those articles. All three looked like straight up opinion pieces to me with little more than naked assertions. I fail to see how my response, which directly linked to facts from original sources and referred to several other facts that I was too lazy to link to direct sources, was anything other than disputing the naked assertions made in those three articles.
If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X
You didn't read them. Understood.
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
Um... did you read my rather lengthy post addressing all the main points of the articles? I addressed the main points of the first article about unemployment and average income, both of which the article simply made naked assertions and generalizations. The following two articles I provided a link directly to the BEA and CBO, both of which provide evidence that effectively neuters the arguments made in them. Granted I have an extra year or two of perspective and data since you provided outdated articles. As we know in retrospect, the slight bump in GDP experienced in 2010 was temporary as the growth rate slowed all the way down to 0.4% the first quarter of 2011 and it is now widely believed, even by liberal economists that we are now in or going to soon be in another technical recession. Also, in retrospect, we know that the unemployment rate is not substantially better than it was and is far worse than pre-stimulus.
Once again, I am left asking do you have any facts to support your assertions? Anywhere?
If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X
Unfortunately, not without getting into a fruitless battle of experts where we both disagree because of bias.I will accept what you say because my research is currently insufficient and my metabolism is in a temporary slide. thanks for your help.
Other than "liberals always lie and conservative/libertarians always tell the truth" type answers how can the statistics of both sides be used to create a valid picture? The truth almost always can be found in the middle.
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
The fallacy almost certainly lies in believing truth is in the center, I'm not so sure about the truth itself. Maybe some bullshit level of "truthiness", perhaps. JC, if your goal is to mischaracterize your opposition as much as possible, I'd say you're getting pretty damned close to succeeding. You're certainly no stranger to exaggerating what your opponent says. Who exactly is at fault in this debate again?
“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)
As the truth is neither the property of the left or the right - where else should I look? What mischaracterization did I do again? Saying that you, BS and Rick Perry hold the same opinion on QE? When did the truth of that statement become a mischaracterization?
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
I haven't even commented on QE3 yet, I don't believe I've commented on QE, so yeah a mischaracterization it does appear to be. As for truth... what it is a property of is also irrelevant and largely rhetorical at best. That you seem to think the truth lies in the (fallacy of) center, isn't. As for where you should be looking for it, well... it isn't my job to clarify for you. Nor is it relevant.
I must say, JCG, you seem to be slipping in your grasp of reading comprehension and your capacity for meaningful, honest debate has taken a nosedive recently. Is there a reason for that, or is this simply the law of averages taking effect?
“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)
Apologies for that - made the mistake of assuming that you and BS were libertarians who held the same economic view. Are you the libertarian type of "the Republican who likes his dope"?
Do you hold the same dislike for QE as BS and Rick Perry? I think the truth lies somewhere between Obama's position and BS's position. If that is the center - it is what it is. I look at Obama's position and BS's position as being a choice between the center right and the far right. I'm sorry I was not more specific at the time.
Not a big fan of either the "throw money at the problem" position or the "let's cut taxes on the top 1% and keep pouring money into the Pentagon and keep our kids stupid by screwing with education" position. How about yourself?
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
I hold some rather modest libertarian positions, though only when it comes to certain social liberties and it doesn't interfere with the 10th amendment. For one, I am pro-death, but I can also celebrate the state of Kansas almost completely delegalizing abortion within its borders. States have that right to decide their own course with regards to social rights, or so I believe. I also hold some moderately eugenicist positions, as well... practically guaranteeing I will never see political office. I don't see any relevant problems with breeding 'superhumans' that will inevitably supplant and replace the large volume of currently existing human population. I don't see either breeding or parenting as universal rights, and I think as long as our global population spirals out of control like it currently is, I think forceful population control is inevitable, and it won't be pretty.
I also see many consumer and labor protections as non-negotiable and should be kept primarily centralized and nationalized, there are many more protections that could be written into law no doubt, and I don't see privatization as the answer for fixing most problems with government so I dare say I'm at odds with most libertarians.
Yes. I should point out, however, that what a politician says and what politician actually thinks are often two separate, highly distant things.
The first two positions are often the result of politicians thinking only of what is best for their pockets, and their campaign funds. As for screwing with education... how could we possibly screw with it in any further? It's bleeding from the asshole as it is. As I've stated previously, the primary cause of this is dumb laws written at federal levels and apathetic, ignorant parents. The common atheistcore position that public education is key in preventing a dumb, ignorant society is arguable at best. The one thing that public education does well in the states, is "keep young'ns outta trouble". For the bare minimum results it achieves now, it also costs a shitload too.
“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)
I thank you both for your assistance in this.
The problem is there are welfare queens in ghettos and in the corporate world. Large corporations can bribe politician to slant the code so they pay little tax while small business pays a lot. Welfare entitlements have created a permanent underclass of people dependent on goverment handouts, that refuse to contribute to the real economy.
The answer is getting rid of taxes altogether in favor of user fees for all government services. And tie welfare benefits to job training, no drug use and mandatory birth control.
Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen
Quantitative Easing for dummies
Good video kap. Now if only I knew whether to laugh or cry.
There's a few more videos just like it from the same author(s) on youtube.
Actually, if you look up "Free Enterprise Cartoon Bears" on youtube, you'll find a whole slew of videos very similar to it, and some a great deal more meaningful and substance-filled than others.
“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)
The Fed is an illegal tax agency. When the do 'quantitive easing'(aka printing money), the are essentially creating a tax that makes everyone's salary, investments and bank accounts worth less. So taxes can be raised without congress or the president.
Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen
http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/national/gdp/gdpnewsrelease.htm
Surprise!
2nd quarter GDP growth revised down to 1.0%. Business inventories were lower than expected that means that businesses do not expect sales to increase in the near future.
The "experts" have revised their estimates for annual gdp growth to 1.7% for the year (their initial estimate last year was that we would see a 3% growth rate). Even that sad number would require the growth rate to be well over 2% in both the 3rd and 4th quarters. I don't see that happening.
The good news is that it looks like QE3 will not be implemented anytime soon. Inflation is so bad that even that idiot Bernanke has admitted it.
If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X