Where is the US economy headed?

@plainoldme,

That's the handsome and rich voiced Brian Stokes Mitchell.

0 Replies

@okie,

okie wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
Whoops, you're right. I did do the math wrong. Not too proud to admit when I screw things up.

Congrats, cyclops. I was really interested to see if you might argue about it. If you had been parados, I think he might have been tempted to argue and try to weasel his way out of it, although I admit that is only my opinion, but there hasn't been one thing that he has ever admitted to. This reminds me of the story about a guy that needed to hire somebody for a job, and he had a choice between an engineer, a geologist, and a lawyer. He brought each in and asked them each just one question, how much is 2 + 2? The engineer answered "absolutely 4, no other answer." The geologist said "somewhere between 3 and 5, I don't want to be pinned down to an exact number." The lawyer leaned forward in his chair and looked at the guy and said "how much do you want it to be?" That is the impression I get from some of you guys here, that you can come up with any answer to any question to fit your pre-conceived notion of what you wish the answer to be.

Quote:
Quote:
No wonder the Democrats cannot balance the checkbooks if they all have similar problems with math?

Well, I would submit that the Republicans have no better a record of 'balancing the checkbook,' and indeed, an arguably much worse one, since the increase in deficit and debt is typically much higher under Republican leadership than Dem leadership.
Cycloptichorn

This is a more complex issue than simply looking at who is president at the time of the deficits, etc. It also depends upon Congress as well, and during Clinton's tenure, the Republicans gained sway after 1994, and I believe Newt Gingrich should get much of the credit for turning things around. Right now, we have a Democratic Congress giving Obama pretty much everything he wants, and so by now I think people realize Obama essentially owns the economy. Obama and Congress are attempting to continue to blame Bush, but I think that ploy is becoming less effective all the time, to the point that it is hardly working at all, except among the most hardened Democrats and liberals, which will vote Democrat anyway. It is the so-called Independents that will make most of the difference, at least that is my opinion.

Don't get me wrong, I do not absolve the Republicans from being partly to blame for the budgetary problems in Washington. However, I still see Democrats as the primary culprit in terms of being big spenders, including the creation of huge entitlement programs, which are our primary problem with the budget. Obama is now in process of increasing more and more entitlement in the health care field. Bush did it with the Prescription Drug Plan, just one example.

It does seem as though we all get it wrong at times!

Economics is a very complex subject and for anyone to think that they have the exact correct answer to our problems is fooling themselves.

Your quote: [ That is the impression I get from some of you guys here, that you can come up with any answer to any question to fit your pre-conceived notion of what you wish the answer to be.]

I do think that are correct in your observations at times. What you are seeing may be reality at times!

Do you think that you are exempt from confirmation bias? We all tend to think that we have the right answers in our heads and some of the answers may be correct but the problem we run into is when we build a working model of most anything," call it economics" we also include many other factors into the working model that are incorrect things," like emotions, culture and traditions that we are taught to be the only correct way.

We need to find a way to bring science into our working model of economics rather than to rely only on trends in the economy because there are too many elements to be considered in economics. I see no way out of this dinosaur system of economics untill we leave out all of our confirmation biases and start bringing in scientific facts. We need to do the same with politics too

2 Replies

Obama lies & the economy dies.

1 Reply

@H2O MAN,

while you're busy repeating this anti-american signature of yours in bold type,
there are dozens of water softener topics gathering cobwebs, unanswered...

why not make yourself useful?

1 Reply

@reasoning logic,

Quote:

I see no way out of this dinosaur system of economics untill we leave out all of our confirmation biases and start bringing in scientific facts.

And what are the economic facts rl? One is not bringing in economic facts by calling for them to be brought in. I know it sounds responsible and wise but it's completely stupid. It's as if calling for Nigella Lawson to bring in a steak and kidney pie with gravy, double chips and two veg would result in her doing so. It's that stupid.

The economic facts are obvious. The economic needs, of most of us at least, are catered for. More than might be good for us many think. And they are catered for by a surprisingly small proportion of the workforce.

The only other needs are psychological and not strictly economic at all. And as you probably know such needs have no limits. Hence it is a book-keeping question under certain political positions driven by power realignments related to the psychological needs.

Take the outward appearance of ladies as an example. Economically only warmth and protection and the hiding of the mysterious and embarrassing aspects are a consideration. And many Darwinists cannot but conclude that the last mentioned category is not strictly economic. I allowed it because I'm conscious of how habituated we all are to it.

But some strong hessian like material, hard wearing to make it last through many a season, would satisfy the economic requirements. Beyond that we start a shimmying seque into affectation and fetish which has no focussed objective.

As Veblen said about 100 years ago--it's a psychiatric ward.

1 Reply

@realjohnboy,

Thank you, realjohnboy. I didn't have the courage to read more than about 3 pages back. It seems that there is more of an offensive argument line of attitude than reasoning for solutions. Lots of numbers and finger pointing. Why is that?

1 Reply

@realjohnboy,

Quote:

It was the largest decline in our deficit in real dollar terms. Adjusted for inflation or as a percent of our GDP, it was not a good year.

But the use of the word "good" Johnny is inappropriate to an economic discussion. The reduction may not only be good but necessary. The fact of their being a reduction may be said to prove the necessity.

0 Replies

@superjuly,

Quote:

Lots of numbers and finger pointing. Why is that?

It ensures, sj, that we never get anywhere and then the discussion can go on forever. A discussion might be thought of as having a life of its own and to survive it needs to be maintained by never getting to a conclusion. We would look silly discussing whether **** sticks to a blanket.

We are socialising really and are all good friends. We take turns at addressing the gathering but are not so impolite as to expect anyone to be attentive to what we are saying or to take the slightest notice of it. Which is probably the best policy I should think.

1 Reply

@Region Philbis,

Do you honestly believe Obama's Anti-American/Anti-Capitalist economic policies are helping the American people?

Why don't you take a hard look at the damage the Community Agitator has done.

3 Replies

@H2O MAN,

Community Agitators are supposed to do damage.

1 Reply

@spendius,

Ok. Could it be said that this is what happens within the political sphere as well? Some sort of male behavior when predominantly involved. Squinney asked what have I been doing all this time that I was off of a2k. I was getting a degree in IR and such debates tend to draw my attention...

1 Reply

@superjuly,

We regularly see discussions on TV between experts in which the discussion itself is the only point. The experts simply prime those who agree with them with points to make in their own social circle. And fill in the time between the ads. Which are the main point.

I remember Dan Rather introducing a commercial break by reminding viewers of the need of the network to make some money.

1 Reply

@spendius,

I do not know the scientific facts and what you shared does not seem to address the facts in a detailed manner neither. Can you give us all the facts about why we should have less regulations? How would this be best for society as a whole and not just a few? How will it bring wealth to all of us? Should ethics be involved?

1 Reply

@H2O MAN,

you are the only Community Agitator i am aware of...

2 Replies

@Region Philbis,

Region Philbis wrote:

you are the only Community Agitator i am aware of...

LOL!

You know PrezBO.

0 Replies

@spendius,

spendius wrote:

Community Agitators are supposed to do damage.

Then PrezBO is doing an outstanding job of damaging the US.

1 Reply

@reasoning logic,

Quote:

Can you give us all the facts about why we should have less regulations?

The basic one is that evolution has created us to find regulation onerous. That is what Freud meant when he said that civilisation makes us sick. We agree to be a bit sick in return for having some safety and predictability in our lives.

But I don't understand your post as a response to mine.

The scientific economic facts are to do with nutrition, shelter and reproduction. The psychological facts are to do with the higher things in life.

0 Replies

@spendius,

OK, but the content of the commercial ads - actually of television itself - must be filtered in the way that it is productive for the public interest. For instance, programs that are mind constructive in terms of knowledge and moral values are in my opinion positive media. Otherwise, as a critic, I choose to move on to see what programs are on in other networks. These experts are in a comfort zone in which they are no longer willing to put their brains to use.

2 Replies

@superjuly,

superjuly wrote:

OK, but the content of the commercial ads - actually of television itself - must be filtered in the way that it is productive for the public interest.

Filtered by the individual viewer using their own brains.

1 Reply

@H2O MAN,

H2O MAN wrote:

spendius wrote:

Community Agitators are supposed to do damage.

Then PrezBO is doing an outstanding job of damaging the US.

Don't forget Congress.

1 Reply

Where is the US economy headed?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know