How will obama help the economy.
Blogs > Clasic |
Clasic
Bosnia-Herzegovina1437 Posts
| ||
chobopeon
United States7342 Posts
not that this isnt something that ought to be discussed all the time - it is - just saying, might wanna check out that thread. | ||
Frits
11782 Posts
| ||
Disintegrate
United States182 Posts
OBAMA IS NO MESSIAH! | ||
Caller
Poland8075 Posts
WE MUST BURN WASHINGTON TO THE GROUND | ||
Xusneb
Canada612 Posts
| ||
TheFoReveRwaR
United States10657 Posts
On April 27 2009 08:07 Clasic wrote: What exactly is the stimulus going to? When are we going to get that free health care? Was he only talking but not doing shit? Our political system takes a very very long time. Its really hard to make any meaningful change. Most of the time it's a good thing, because it prevents any one president's administration from fucking too much up. But it also makes positive change difficult as well. So far, Obama has sincerely gone after his agenda and it appears he really does want to get it done while he's fresh in office(and therefore has more support...almost all presidencies follow this pattern...popular at first, and it goes down slowly as the presidency goes on). So I expect him to follow through. Don't know if he can get his legistlation passed, but he does seem to be trying. | ||
il0seonpurpose
Korea (South)5638 Posts
| ||
TheFoReveRwaR
United States10657 Posts
Incredibly remarkable actually. To the op: If you want the details on the stimulus package, try a little research. You can find out exactly what's in it. | ||
Durak
Canada3684 Posts
On April 27 2009 08:18 il0seonpurpose wrote: Why do so many people oppose the stimulus package? Because of inflation and a waste of tax payer money. | ||
Railxp
Hong Kong1313 Posts
Will stimulus package save economy? History might have the answer. Article Below: + Show Spoiler + FDR's policies prolonged Depression by 7 years, UCLA economists calculate By Meg Sullivan | 8/10/2004 12:23:12 PM Two UCLA economists say they have figured out why the Great Depression dragged on for almost 15 years, and they blame a suspect previously thought to be beyond reproach: President Franklin D. Roosevelt. After scrutinizing Roosevelt's record for four years, Harold L. Cole and Lee E. Ohanian conclude in a new study that New Deal policies signed into law 71 years ago thwarted economic recovery for seven long years. "Why the Great Depression lasted so long has always been a great mystery, and because we never really knew the reason, we have always worried whether we would have another 10- to 15-year economic slump," said Ohanian, vice chair of UCLA's Department of Economics. "We found that a relapse isn't likely unless lawmakers gum up a recovery with ill-conceived stimulus policies." In an article in the August issue of the Journal of Political Economy, Ohanian and Cole blame specific anti-competition and pro-labor measures that Roosevelt promoted and signed into law June 16, 1933. "President Roosevelt believed that excessive competition was responsible for the Depression by reducing prices and wages, and by extension reducing employment and demand for goods and services," said Cole, also a UCLA professor of economics. "So he came up with a recovery package that would be unimaginable today, allowing businesses in every industry to collude without the threat of antitrust prosecution and workers to demand salaries about 25 percent above where they ought to have been, given market forces. The economy was poised for a beautiful recovery, but that recovery was stalled by these misguided policies." Using data collected in 1929 by the Conference Board and the Bureau of Labor Statistics, Cole and Ohanian were able to establish average wages and prices across a range of industries just prior to the Depression. By adjusting for annual increases in productivity, they were able to use the 1929 benchmark to figure out what prices and wages would have been during every year of the Depression had Roosevelt's policies not gone into effect. They then compared those figures with actual prices and wages as reflected in the Conference Board data. In the three years following the implementation of Roosevelt's policies, wages in 11 key industries averaged 25 percent higher than they otherwise would have done, the economists calculate. But unemployment was also 25 percent higher than it should have been, given gains in productivity. Meanwhile, prices across 19 industries averaged 23 percent above where they should have been, given the state of the economy. With goods and services that much harder for consumers to afford, demand stalled and the gross national product floundered at 27 percent below where it otherwise might have been. "High wages and high prices in an economic slump run contrary to everything we know about market forces in economic downturns," Ohanian said. "As we've seen in the past several years, salaries and prices fall when unemployment is high. By artificially inflating both, the New Deal policies short-circuited the market's self-correcting forces." The policies were contained in the National Industrial Recovery Act (NIRA), which exempted industries from antitrust prosecution if they agreed to enter into collective bargaining agreements that significantly raised wages. Because protection from antitrust prosecution all but ensured higher prices for goods and services, a wide range of industries took the bait, Cole and Ohanian found. By 1934 more than 500 industries, which accounted for nearly 80 percent of private, non-agricultural employment, had entered into the collective bargaining agreements called for under NIRA. Cole and Ohanian calculate that NIRA and its aftermath account for 60 percent of the weak recovery. Without the policies, they contend that the Depression would have ended in 1936 instead of the year when they believe the slump actually ended: 1943. Roosevelt's role in lifting the nation out of the Great Depression has been so revered that Time magazine readers cited it in 1999 when naming him the 20th century's second-most influential figure. "This is exciting and valuable research," said Robert E. Lucas Jr., the 1995 Nobel Laureate in economics, and the John Dewey Distinguished Service Professor of Economics at the University of Chicago. "The prevention and cure of depressions is a central mission of macroeconomics, and if we can't understand what happened in the 1930s, how can we be sure it won't happen again?" NIRA's role in prolonging the Depression has not been more closely scrutinized because the Supreme Court declared the act unconstitutional within two years of its passage. "Historians have assumed that the policies didn't have an impact because they were too short-lived, but the proof is in the pudding," Ohanian said. "We show that they really did artificially inflate wages and prices." Even after being deemed unconstitutional, Roosevelt's anti-competition policies persisted — albeit under a different guise, the scholars found. Ohanian and Cole painstakingly documented the extent to which the Roosevelt administration looked the other way as industries once protected by NIRA continued to engage in price-fixing practices for four more years. The number of antitrust cases brought by the Department of Justice fell from an average of 12.5 cases per year during the 1920s to an average of 6.5 cases per year from 1935 to 1938, the scholars found. Collusion had become so widespread that one Department of Interior official complained of receiving identical bids from a protected industry (steel) on 257 different occasions between mid-1935 and mid-1936. The bids were not only identical but also 50 percent higher than foreign steel prices. Without competition, wholesale prices remained inflated, averaging 14 percent higher than they would have been without the troublesome practices, the UCLA economists calculate. NIRA's labor provisions, meanwhile, were strengthened in the National Relations Act, signed into law in 1935. As union membership doubled, so did labor's bargaining power, rising from 14 million strike days in 1936 to about 28 million in 1937. By 1939 wages in protected industries remained 24 percent to 33 percent above where they should have been, based on 1929 figures, Cole and Ohanian calculate. Unemployment persisted. By 1939 the U.S. unemployment rate was 17.2 percent, down somewhat from its 1933 peak of 24.9 percent but still remarkably high. By comparison, in May 2003, the unemployment rate of 6.1 percent was the highest in nine years. Recovery came only after the Department of Justice dramatically stepped enforcement of antitrust cases nearly four-fold and organized labor suffered a string of setbacks, the economists found. "The fact that the Depression dragged on for years convinced generations of economists and policy-makers that capitalism could not be trusted to recover from depressions and that significant government intervention was required to achieve good outcomes," Cole said. "Ironically, our work shows that the recovery would have been very rapid had the government not intervened." source: http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/FDR-s-Policies-Prolonged-Depression-5409.aspx | ||
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
Hayekian economists think Keynsian policies don't work! | ||
only_human89
United States212 Posts
| ||
OreoBoi
Canada1639 Posts
RON PAUL 2012!!! | ||
KaasZerg
Netherlands927 Posts
| ||
only_human89
United States212 Posts
On April 27 2009 08:55 KaasZerg wrote: He can solve a economic crisis that was in the making for 10-15 years in a day. Government can spent money in more usefull ways then another douche buying another SUV. So pay your taxes (;.Keeping the goverment small is overrated. It isn't overated in the slightest. More government = less freedom every time. RON PAUL 2012 BITCHES. | ||
SayaSP
Laos5494 Posts
| ||
Mindcrime
United States6899 Posts
On April 27 2009 10:20 only_human89 wrote: It isn't overated in the slightest. More government = less freedom every time. RON PAUL 2012 BITCHES. If more government equals less freedom "every time" then why are you shouting your support for a small federal government guy rather than an anarchist? | ||
FragKrag
United States11530 Posts
On April 27 2009 11:19 Mindcrime wrote: If more government equals less freedom "every time" then why are you shouting your support for a small federal government guy rather than an anarchist? wouldn't voting for an anarchist be oxymoronic | ||
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
On April 27 2009 11:30 FragKrag wrote: wouldn't voting for an anarchist be oxymoronic As opposed to voting for Ron Paul, which is just moronic. I don't understand why people think it's individuals who are causing good/bad things to happen in government. It's the structures of our institutions that shape most of what goes on. Putting Ron Paul in office isn't going to change the interest group penetration in Congress or remove us from Iraq. If for some reason he actually won, he would get very little done. | ||
only_human89
United States212 Posts
On April 27 2009 12:02 Jibba wrote: As opposed to voting for Ron Paul, which is just moronic. I don't understand why people think it's individuals who are causing good/bad things to happen in government. It's the structures of our institutions that shape most of what goes on. Putting Ron Paul in office isn't going to change the interest group penetration in Congress or remove us from Iraq. If for some reason he actually won, he would get very little done. yeah thats the lazy response. lets just let government take over the country and do nothing about it, there's nothing we can do!. it's like saying "i don't like government involvement either, but they are involved so w/e." but i agree its the people that need to take back the country not one man alone. | ||
only_human89
United States212 Posts
On April 27 2009 11:19 Mindcrime wrote: If more government equals less freedom "every time" then why are you shouting your support for a small federal government guy rather than an anarchist? why would i be anarchist? i just want the federal government out of the picture and for the states to have more freedom to decide what's best for them. not everybody has the same beliefs. to have the fed's say "this is how it's going to be done for everyone rather you like it or not" is bull shit. | ||
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
On April 27 2009 13:43 only_human89 wrote: yeah thats the lazy response. lets just let government take over the country and do nothing about it, there's nothing we can do!. it's like saying "i don't like government involvement either, but they are involved so w/e." but i agree its the people that need to take back the country not one man alone. It's not lazy, it's accurate. I understand the problems of a significant federal government and I think they're still outweighed by the problems of a weak central government. I know I'm not going to change your mind about that since you've probably already read everything Ron Paul (and probably none of Hayek, interestingly) has ever written, but you should at least understand what is feasible and what isn't. You have to play by the rules of the organization or you don't get shit done, and those rules dictate the change you're looking for isn't possible. Even Ron Paul plays by those rules to some extent (hint: check his voting record, he's a Republican, not an independent.) And what happens when he doesn't follow the rules, when he mouths off as if he's an expert? He gets 0 chair positions. And he gets put on House Financial Service instead of Ways and Means or Budget. And he gets put on House Foreign Services instead of Armed Services or Homeland Security. Nancy Pelosi owns his ass, and she's nice enough to let him enter the Capital Building. Ron Paul is a nobody, except on the internet, where people don't bother to study actual economics or politics before they write about it. What you're proposing does not require him to win, it requires two or three consecutive Congressional elections where similar candidates also win, in order to make a truly anti-Federalist platform possible. If you truly want to support the libertarian cause, you'd find and support other congressional candidates with similar view, rather than putting all your faith behind a single, insignificant figurehead. EDIT: And yes, I believe Pelosi could actually have him physically prevented from entering the chambers if she wanted to. | ||
only_human89
United States212 Posts
On April 27 2009 14:42 Jibba wrote: It's not lazy, it's accurate. I understand the problems of a significant federal government and I think they're still outweighed by the problems of a weak central government. I know I'm not going to change your mind about that since you've probably already read everything Ron Paul (and probably none of Hayek, interestingly) has ever written, but you should at least understand what is feasible and what isn't. You have to play by the rules of the organization or you don't get shit done, and those rules dictate the change you're looking for isn't possible. Even Ron Paul plays by those rules to some extent (hint: check his voting record, he's a Republican, not an independent.) And what happens when he doesn't follow the rules, when he mouths off as if he's an expert? He gets 0 chair positions. And he gets put on House Financial Service instead of Ways and Means or Budget. And he gets put on House Foreign Services instead of Armed Services or Homeland Security. Nancy Pelosi owns his ass, and she's nice enough to let him enter the Capital Building. Ron Paul is a nobody, except on the internet, where people don't bother to study actual economics or politics before they write about it. What you're proposing does not require him to win, it requires two or three consecutive Congressional elections where similar candidates also win, in order to make a truly anti-Federalist platform possible. If you truly want to support the libertarian cause, you'd find and support other congressional candidates with similar view, rather than putting all your faith behind a single, insignificant figurehead. EDIT: And yes, I believe Pelosi could actually have him physically prevented from entering the chambers if she wanted to. Well it's not about putting all my faith into one guy. Educating the American people and sharing my beliefs is more important. But I tell you right now if the dollar crashes the government will have no where to run and hide. In fact it probably would be a good thing. People will finally realize all this government regulation hasn't helped us. If it doesn't crash are kids will sure be pissed off becase they are the ones that the burdon will be left on. | ||
Mindcrime
United States6899 Posts
because "more government = less freedom every time" i just want the federal government out of the picture and for the states to have more freedom to decide what's best for them. not everybody has the same beliefs. to have the fed's say "this is how it's going to be done for everyone rather you like it or not" is bull shit. You want states to have more freedom? silly collectivist | ||
gchan
United States654 Posts
On April 27 2009 12:02 Jibba wrote: As opposed to voting for Ron Paul, which is just moronic. That response is full of win. Nice comeback. | ||
CharlieMurphy
United States22895 Posts
| ||
deathgod6
United States5063 Posts
RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE! | ||
| ||