Interesting Times

[Kathianne]

'The Founders Were Liberals', 'Tea Parties Are Facists', 'Obama Is A Communist', are some of the refrains from the past year:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/ralphbenko/2011/08/22/the-constitutional-populist-realignment-of-2012/


<hgroup> 8/22/2011 @ 1:50PM |16,220 views The Constitutional Populist Realignment Of 2012 4 comments, 0 called-out (http://www.forbes.com/sites/ralphbenko/2011/08/22/the-constitutional-populist-realignment-of-2012/#comments_header)
+ Comment now (http://www.forbes.com/sites/ralphbenko/2011/08/22/the-constitutional-populist-realignment-of-2012/#comment_reply)

</hgroup>How to create tens of millions of jobs, good jobs? Much hinges on the answer to this question.

Long gone are the golden Reagan-Clinton years that saw almost 40 million new positions created. In the decade since Clinton left office America created a paltry 3 million under George W. Bush, and Barack Obama recently was scored as having the worst job creation for a first period in office (http://nation.foxnews.com/president-obama/2011/08/04/ouch-check-out-obamas-record-job-creation) of any president since 1890, excepting Hoover...

[Abbey Marie]

Lovin' this from the article:

" D.C., where our tax dollars go to die..."

[Kathianne]

Lovin' this from the article:

" D.C., where our tax dollars go to die..."

It would take a miracle for a second Obama term. Now my worry is 'who's next?' ;)

[Abbey Marie]

It would take a miracle for a second Obama term. Now my worry is 'who's next?' ;)

If I were to predict this based on those old standardized test questions: "Which is next in the pattern", based on our current President's qualifications, I might have to predict Al Sharpton.

[Kathianne]

If I were to predict this based on those old standardized test questions: "Which is next in the pattern", based on our current President's lqualifications, I might have to predict Al Sharpton.

Perhaps in 2016. Quite sure a Republican is going to get in.

[KartRacerBoy]

Didn't anyone else click on the link to the Keynes v Hayek "Fight of the Century"? Great stuff. :laugh:

http://econstories.tv/2011/04/28/fight-of-the-century-music-video/

[KartRacerBoy]

That Forbes article is bat-shit crazy however. Let's go back to the gold standard becz the founding fathers didn't know shit about economics. What partisan drivel.

The real problem is that that, IMO, the govt can only marginally affect the economy. It might slow down a recession or slightly increase growth, but it can't reverse the direction of the economy absent a land war in China (to quote Princess Bride). World Wars are always great for growth becz so much shit gets blown up and needs to be replaced.

So if I was president and I really wanted to improve the economy, I'd uninvent nukes and start a land war in china.

[fj1200]

Didn't anyone else click on the link to the Keynes v Hayek "Fight of the Century"? Great stuff. :laugh:

http://econstories.tv/2011/04/28/fight-of-the-century-music-video/

Beautiful, there's no way Keynes can win with Say in Hayek's corner... unless it's rigged of course. :laugh:

But of course it is rigged because government wants itself to be the answer no matter the question, how dare an elected official declare that it's the people that have the ultimate control.

[fj1200]

That Forbes article is bat-shit crazy however. Let's go back to the gold standard becz the founding fathers didn't know shit about economics. What partisan drivel.

The real problem is that that, IMO, the govt can only marginally affect the economy. It might slow down a recession or slightly increase growth, but it can't reverse the direction of the economy absent a land war in China (to quote Princess Bride). World Wars are always great for growth becz so much shit gets blown up and needs to be replaced.

So if I was president and I really wanted to improve the economy, I'd uninvent nukes and start a land war in china.

No, the government CAN drastically effect the economy mostly by deciding how much of a drag to be. I think that drag has been increasing, at least relative to other countries, for quite some time and at each recession companies that were competitive because they were established were unseated. Once unseated it is very hard to get those types of jobs back.

But you're right about the gold standard, fraught with as many hazards with it as without although it is interesting that Canada's banks survived the Great Depression very well without a central bank.

[Kathianne]

I've no delusions that we'd return to the gold standard, not happening. However, we should stop devaluing our money through printing to make ends meet. When that's happening, something is wrong. May have to do with lack of fiscal responsibility? If the government won't put forth and pass a budget for 2 years + who should be howling? Look in a mirror.

[KartRacerBoy]

I've no delusions that we'd return to the gold standard, not happening. However, we should stop devaluing our money through printing to make ends meet. When that's happening, something is wrong. May have to do with lack of fiscal responsibility? If the government won't put forth and pass a budget for 2 years + who should be howling? Look in a mirror.


Yeah, becz our economy is so full of growth that easy money is going to create a rush of inflation. You and fj are funny!

[fj1200]

Yeah, becz our economy is so full of growth that easy money is going to create a rush of inflation. You and fj are funny!

And based on all of the commodity inflation you think the Fed is going to be able to pull that money out without inflation kicking up? You'll also need to point out where I said anything about inflation.

Did you see gold crater today? Did you see why? Personally I think that once we see expectations of future growth much of that money will come out of gold dropping the price substantially.

[Kathianne]

KRB, just how much economics training have you had? My understanding is you are a lawyer? Was your Bachelor's in Econ?

[KartRacerBoy]

KRB, just how much economics training have you had? My understanding is you are a lawyer? Was your Bachelor's in Econ?

BA in econ, but took several graduate classes. Then I went to Univ. of Virginia and was in their Economic Phd program for a year before I left (just not strong enough ior intuitive enough n math). Then I worked at the Federal Reserve for a year before going to the EPA as an economic analyst in their Climate Change program for 5 yrs. Then I went to law school.

[fj1200]

... worked at the Federal Reserve...

You were at the Fed?!? The source of all evil in the western world?!? :slap:

j/k What did you do there?

[KartRacerBoy]

You were at the Fed?!? The source of all evil in the western world?!? :slap:

j/k What did you do there?

I was a mere research assistant collecting statistics. The Federal Reserve is a beautiful building, except in the attic where I worked for crappy money. It was boring, but the people were great and I got the fancy title of Junior Economist!!! As if...

My greatest claim to economics fame was when I had a job interview at the Brookings Institute with a guy named Henry Aaron, a microeconomist who has since won the nobel prize in economiics. But we clearly didn't click at all together. I thought he was a pompous ass and had no idea who he was. I told my buddy about it who was a visiting econ prof at Georgetown and he blew his top at me and said I should've kissed Aaron's ass just to be associated with him. I, however, have never been good at that. :laugh:

http://www.brookings.edu/experts/aaronh.aspx

[KartRacerBoy]

n't
No, the government CAN drastically effect the economy mostly by deciding how much of a drag to be. I think that drag has been increasing, at least relative to other countries, for quite some time and at each recession companies that were competitive because they were established were unseated. Once unseated it is very hard to get those types of jobs back.

But you're right about the gold standard, fraught with as many hazards with it as without although it is interesting that Canada's banks survived the Great Depression very well without a central bank.

I should clarify. I meant the effects of fiscal policy. Fed spending is only about 15% of GDP with local and state spending another 13% of GDP. But state/local go down in lean times as Fed spending goes up, offsetting the effect of Fed money injected. http://www.brookings.edu/experts/aaronh.aspx

That doesn't mean it's not worth trying, as I've previously said.

Yes, overregulation can be bad but (and I think you disagree with me on this), so can underregulation or lack of oversight as in the financial market collapse. Now don't get all jumpy on me, fj. I know it wasn't* the sole cause of the financial collapse, but it was certainly a big factor.

And damnit, those rescued banks should've been broken up under the anti-trust laws. Too big to fail, my ass. More like TOO BIG period.

[fj1200]

Yes, overregulation can be bad but (and I think you disagree with me on this), so can underregulation or lack of oversight as in the financial market collapse. Now don't get all jumpy on me, fj. I know it wasn't* the sole cause of the financial collapse, but it was certainly a big factor.

And damnit, those rescued banks should've been broken up under the anti-trust laws. Too big to fail, my ass. More like TOO BIG period.

I think you meant to say it wasn't the sole cause? I think I've been clear on what I feel the cause to be but regulation is fine but only good regulation. Unfortunately we've been cursed with regulation for regulations sake. Remember how Sarbanes-Oxley was going to keep us safe?

I remember a proposal regarding the banks to raise the reserve requirement as the banks got larger; the banks could choose their size based on that requirement. I just think they need to have clear reserves requirements based on the asset type, etc.

[KartRacerBoy]

I think you meant to say it wasn't the sole cause?

OOOOPS!!! Yes, that is what I meant. It won't let me edit it either.