[quote]bigflamer wrote:
Gael,
I’d like to know where you’re getting your numbers from. Links pleases.[/quote]
Please be more specific, and we’ll start there.
[quote]Gael wrote:
bigflamer wrote:
Gael,
I’d like to know where you’re getting your numbers from. Links pleases.
Please be more specific, and we’ll start there.[/quote]
You know what claims you made, don’t be stupid. Back’em up, that’s all I’m saying.
[quote]bigflamer wrote:
Gael wrote:
bigflamer wrote:
Gael,
I’d like to know where you’re getting your numbers from. Links pleases.
Please be more specific, and we’ll start there.
You know what claims you made, don’t be stupid. Back’em up, that’s all I’m saying.[/quote]
Since you aren’t being specific, I will assume you are talking about the unemployment statistics. From 1940 and on, these were collected from the US BLS. Between 1900 and 1940, I was able to find the statistics spread across several books at the library. This was several years back. I just spent the last half hour trying to dig up my research, but couldn’t find it.
Meanwhile, you are welcome to look at the the numbers on the US BLS site to see if I am wrong, but you will find that I am right. Heck I will start you off with a link: CPS Tables
Where there economic booms, recessions, recoveries, wars? What was monetary policy like? How about key technological advances (like a tech boom)? Did one President suffer from the policies of the previous, or maybe benefit? What was congressional make up like?
[quote]Gael wrote:
Your ideas take motivation and competitiveness out of society, that is why this capitalist socieyt is starting to drown now because we have socialist restraints and legislation tying us down.
LOL. So, my “idea” (the correct term is observation) – that job creation is always greater under democratic presidents – somehow takes competetiveness out of the market? That’s a good one, I’d love to see you reason your way through it.[/quote]
Job creation is not a measure of success per se.
If higher taxes force more women into the workplace to support an inefficient government you have created jobs.
However, all you are doing is wasting resources.
[quote]orion wrote:
Gael wrote:
Your ideas take motivation and competitiveness out of society, that is why this capitalist socieyt is starting to drown now because we have socialist restraints and legislation tying us down.
LOL. So, my “idea” (the correct term is observation) – that job creation is always greater under democratic presidents – somehow takes competetiveness out of the market? That’s a good one, I’d love to see you reason your way through it.
Job creation is not a measure of success per se.
If higher taxes force more women into the workplace to support an inefficient government you have created jobs.
However, all you are doing is wasting resources.
[/quote]
You’re right. Job creation numbers can be misleading. The unemployment rate is much more meaningful.
[quote]Gael wrote:
Ignorant. Any economy that is not in a recession will grow.[/quote]
No that is not correct. If an economy has no movement, it is not in a recession, so it does not need to grow.[quote]
Slow growth economies can still qualify as a recession. The economy grew, but not as much as the historical average, and certainly not as much as it did during the Clinton years.[/quote]
Again incorrect. A recession means the economy is receding, not growing. Any growth means it is not in a recession.
He was pointing out a glaring mistake in your argument, one that should have been obvious. And while your making plenty of mistakes, you are attacking him as if he is the one who is incorrect, while being blind to your own mistakes.
It should also be pointed out that nobody can rely on just who is in the presidency, as Congress has a lot more to do with this stuff. The President can only speed up, or slow down what Congress does, and propose ideas to them. (Well a few more powers then that, but you get the idea.)
Interestingly people are both trying to over-complicate this and oversimplify it at the same time.
The basic economic issues are fairly simple and easy to understand, but are being complicated by things that do not matter. And at the same time the whole economy is much more complex then this person is president, and the economy did this.
You have all of the rest of the government, how powerful the president was, what actions were taken, regardless of what political party the president supposedly belongs to. And the actions of every single person on the face of the Earth.
Is there a war? What is the nature of that war? Is there peace? What kind of peace? What is going on in international trade? What technological advances are taking place? What National or World events are taking place that are influencing the economy? What actions are other countries taking that influence us?
Is OPEC cutting production? Are their members following the orders, or just paying lip service to OPEC? (As they did in the 90’s.)
What actions are the states taking? Are they assisting with benefiting the economy, or standing in the way?
Too many people make the mistake of thinking that economics is a hard science, but it is not, it is a social science. When actions are taken, people respond. And it is a good idea to find out how they are responding, and why.
Instead people are walking around placing blame, and credit, instead of learning the facts.
My thoughts on economics have not been influenced by politics, but my political beliefs have been shaped by my understanding of economics. Something I was interested in way before I ever had any interest in politics.
[quote]Gael wrote:
[quote]
No actually I do this when I have a spare second so I don’t generally have the time to proofread for spelling,
But on the subject of education, your right, I didn’t graduate from highschool, didn’t have a double major B.S., didn’t perform government funded genomics research on biochemical agents, didn’t obtain a masters and don’t have 6 years of major industry experience in a management role, very astute on your part. My whole life is a fallacy.
And honestly I don’t care what someone calls themself, republican democrat, left right, means nothing, all I care is what they do. What are their ideologies, so maybe ideologies are a better word than idea. And your ideologies decrease competetiveness, motivation, productivity, strive to live better, strive to be better.
When you are constantly giving people handouts they don’t learn how to do anything on their own, when you tell them they can do anything, they don’t focus on what their actual strengths are and work on them.
You are just far enough behind some of us to be part of the generation that is tought everyone is equal, but in reality we aren’t and that is a good thing, that is why some people are doctors, some accountants, some teachers, because we are all different.
so don’t try to handicapp the ones that have good business sense by taking more money, giving the lazy more of that money, supporting failed businesses, bowing to special interest, I am for very lean government, very low taxes and letting society take care of itself, get government out of it.
and tax breaks for employees does nothing for the business supporting the employees, keep stupid theories where they belong in text books.
[quote]apbt55 wrote:
Gael wrote:
No actually I do this when I have a spare second so I don’t generally have the time to proofread for spelling,
[/quote]
Spellchecker? Standard Firefox feature.
[quote]Gael wrote:
Wrong. Unemployment was 7.1 in 1980 and 7.5 in 1992. I do not have a cite my general claim because no one has analyzed this data besides myself. The US BLS publishes these statistics back to 1940, but if you do some research, you can find the earlier data as well.[/quote]
Unemployment is the ONLY measure of the economy? Since when did that start happening? Interest rates and inflation were suspiciously omitted in your rush to tell me I am wrong.
Defending anything Carter did with the economy is a losing proposition for you, kiddo. I am sure your professor has stories he could tell you, but you really needed to be alive back then to appreciate just how shitty the economy was under that worthless prick of a President. 20% interest rates, $1000 gold prices, and double digit inflation.
But -
You do know that Bush had just passed the largest tax increase in history (according to Bill Clinton anyhow)? Yo don’t think that might have had anything to do with the unemployment numbers, do you?
We had just finished a war, if you are old enough to remember back to 1992. That never has an effect on the job market, does it?
Additionally, 1992 was the threshold of the tech revolution. When you have a major shift like that, employment will be shaky for a while.
You need to do more than listen to your professor. If you are doing research on your own, you might want to try harder.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
If high taxes are better for the economy, why should any of us get to keep anything we make? We should turn it all over to the government. More is better, especially if it is the government taking private money.
Gael wrote:
Specious. I could just as easily say that since taxes are bad, why don’t we eliminate taxes altogether? Neither argument holds water. Why? Because there is a sweet spot to be found that is not entirely predicted by the simplistic Laffer curve.[/quote]
Taxes in general cannot be eliminated, but the income tax most certainly can be.
Anyone who wants the government to be a nanny, to bail failing businesses, guarantee mortgages for bad risk borrowers, take care of our retirement, manage our medical care, or is in favor of any spending on the Great Society programs is for waste.
You are for waste. You are for a nanny state. You need my money, therefore you justify taking it by saying it will make the economy better. Higher taxes has never improved anything in the private sector.
Tax cuts are never worse. The lower the taxes the better. Spending is the culprit. Always has been. Always will be.
[quote]Gael wrote:
Every red presidential period ended in higher unemployment, and every blue presidential period ended in lower unemployment.
[/quote]
Why is this so?
College should have taught you to interpret data and it’s implications and short falls. Not doing so just represents no causation.
Maybe you haven’t taken that class yet.
[quote]orion wrote:
apbt55 wrote:
Gael wrote:
No actually I do this when I have a spare second so I don’t generally have the time to proofread for spelling,
Spellchecker? Standard Firefox feature.
[/quote]
Yes can when I am at home, but if I check from my laptop or at work, can’t use firefox.
[quote]Gael wrote:
pat wrote:
Gael wrote:
… Revenue increased during the Bush years, not because of his tax cuts, but because the economy grew.
You do realize you just shot your self in the foot with that, right? And why do you think the economy grew, sun spots?
Ignorant. Any economy that is not in a recession will grow. Slow growth economies can still qualify as a recession. The economy grew, but not as much as the historical average, and certainly not as much as it did during the Clinton years.
Why is it that you can post stupid shit, and no one will call you out on it as long as you are on the right?[/quote]
Exactly right your post is ignorant as fucking hell and you clearly have no clue how the real world works. You may not remember but the lion’s share of the economic growth of the '90’s where tied up in dot-bombs and Enron. In case you weren’t old enough to know at that point, you’d know that those poor ass decisions caused the recession in 01-02 because people figured out that if you don’t actually make things or if you just make up profit numbers out of thin air, you won’t stay in business long.
I am so glad you brought up clinton, because while he was porking his lard ass intern he set the economy up with the fall it it just took with the sub-prime mortgage crap he shoved down peoples throat.
Perhaps looking at causation rather than correlation would suit you better. You do know the difference?
[quote]rainjack wrote:
Gael wrote:
Wrong. Unemployment was 7.1 in 1980 and 7.5 in 1992. I do not have a cite my general claim because no one has analyzed this data besides myself. The US BLS publishes these statistics back to 1940, but if you do some research, you can find the earlier data as well.
Unemployment is the ONLY measure of the economy? Since when did that start happening? Interest rates and inflation were suspiciously omitted in your rush to tell me I am wrong.
Defending anything Carter did with the economy is a losing proposition for you, kiddo. I am sure your professor has stories he could tell you, but you really needed to be alive back then to appreciate just how shitty the economy was under that worthless prick of a President. 20% interest rates, $1000 gold prices, and double digit inflation.
But -
You do know that Bush had just passed the largest tax increase in history (according to Bill Clinton anyhow)? Yo don’t think that might have had anything to do with the unemployment numbers, do you?
We had just finished a war, if you are old enough to remember back to 1992. That never has an effect on the job market, does it?
Additionally, 1992 was the threshold of the tech revolution. When you have a major shift like that, employment will be shaky for a while.
You need to do more than listen to your professor. If you are doing research on your own, you might want to try harder.
rainjack wrote:
If high taxes are better for the economy, why should any of us get to keep anything we make? We should turn it all over to the government. More is better, especially if it is the government taking private money.
Gael wrote:
Specious. I could just as easily say that since taxes are bad, why don’t we eliminate taxes altogether? Neither argument holds water. Why? Because there is a sweet spot to be found that is not entirely predicted by the simplistic Laffer curve.
Taxes in general cannot be eliminated, but the income tax most certainly can be.
Everyone wants government spending to be as low and efficient as we can get it. Is anyone really in favor of waste? No, people just disagree on what programs should be cut.
Anyone who wants the government to be a nanny, to bail failing businesses, guarantee mortgages for bad risk borrowers, take care of our retirement, manage our medical care, or is in favor of any spending on the Great Society programs is for waste.
You are for waste. You are for a nanny state. You need my money, therefore you justify taking it by saying it will make the economy better. Higher taxes has never improved anything in the private sector.
Anyway, which is worse: a spending increase, or tax cuts accompanied by a spending increase that far exceeds additional revenue?
Tax cuts are never worse. The lower the taxes the better. Spending is the culprit. Always has been. Always will be.
[/quote]
I say only those who are willing to pay more should have their taxes increased…We’ll see how long that would last…When I choose to do charity, it is never to the government.
[quote]apbt55 wrote:
orion wrote:
apbt55 wrote:
Gael wrote:
No actually I do this when I have a spare second so I don’t generally have the time to proofread for spelling,
Spellchecker? Standard Firefox feature.
Yes can when I am at home, but if I check from my laptop or at work, can’t use firefox.
[/quote]
OMG!
They make you use the windows internet explorer?
Dirty rotten bastards!
[quote]orion wrote:
They make you use the windows internet explorer?
Dirty rotten bastards!
[/quote]
To be fair many enterprise applications that use .NET will not function on anything but IE. Yes, it sucks hardcore.
[quote]orion wrote:
apbt55 wrote:
orion wrote:
apbt55 wrote:
Gael wrote:
No actually I do this when I have a spare second so I don’t generally have the time to proofread for spelling,
Spellchecker? Standard Firefox feature.
Yes can when I am at home, but if I check from my laptop or at work, can’t use firefox.
OMG!
They make you use the windows internet explorer?
Dirty rotten bastards!
[/quote]
I am actually very surprised I can access this site,
with our security software.
[quote]Gael wrote:
dhickey wrote:
Gael wrote:
Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
Wow, it’s a good thing you guys know more about tax policy than this author. Why don’t they pay you guys to write columns?
/painfully thick sarcasm
Welcome to T-Nation, where people blabber endlessly about gay marriage and racism, but brush aside legitimate criticism of far right economics because it’s, duh, stupid.
Why don’t either one of you guys read a book on economics? If you are able to do this, you will quickly see the complete lack of logic and reason in this article.
There is no “far right” economics. There’s classic economics, Keynesian economics, fascism, socialism. Do you know the difference?
You are a shining beacon of the far right. You pretend to oppose socialism, but have no problem with bailing out GM. Government giveaways are a moral hazard for others, but not for yourself. Personal responsibility for me, but not for you. There is no underlying cohesion to your views. Headhunter is more ideologically consistent than you are. Natural law trumps utilitarianism, except where you find this inconvenient.
[/quote]
You are a shining beacon of stupidity. Bailing out the financial institutions sent me into a rage. So is the prospect of bailing out GM or home owners that took out mortgages they can’t afford, or American Express. You don’t know what the fuck you are talking about and it becomes even more evident with every post.
I beleive in classic economic principals. The same principal that have been widely accepted by the greatest economists of the last 200 and some odd years. The economics of Smith, Hayak, Von Mises, Rothbard, Friedman, etc. If you knew your head from your ass, you would know that corporate welfare is just as damaging as personal welfare in this school of thought. But then again, you don’t know your head from your ass.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Where there economic booms, recessions, recoveries, wars? What was monetary policy like? How about key technological advances (like a tech boom)? Did one President suffer from the policies of the previous, or maybe benefit? What was congressional make up like?[/quote]
He has zero economic knowledge. If he did he would know that economics is not a statisticians game. But this has only been know for a little over 200 years so you can’t expect anyone to catch on quite yet.