Obama '08?

@parados,

parados wrote:

Quote:
economically harmful policies it has introduced with respect to energy and trade policy; health care; and mindless support of self-serving labor unions

Dodd Frank - Nothing to do with what you claimed.

Obamacare? Health care but the "economically harmful policy" is your opinion it seems and not that of the CBO.

The Consumer Affairs department - Nothing to do with what you claimed and hasn't introduced any regulation to my knowledge

EPA regulation of CO2? It hasn't gone into effect yet and won't for several months.

So.. you haven't provided a single harmful policy affecting what you claimed.

Quote:
It takes a mindless, self-absorbed, pedantic little pipsqueak to demand proof of what is before his eyes.
Sorry I asked for something you can't seem to produce.

As you can see, I had already acknowleged your proclivity for silly, niggling pedantry. It wasn't at all necessary for you to again demonstrate it.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

If you have an argument to make here, Cyclo, then make it yourself. I'm not very interested in the various blogs from which you get your packaged opinions, nor do I feel any obligation to counter the arguments their authors make on a point-by-point basis. They aren't a part of our conversation.

They are as much a part of our conversation as YOUR pre-packaged opinions. You didn't decide all on your own the things you claim are responsible for our economic woes; you read your information in other places, the same way as I do. It's only a dodge on your part to claim that you don't need to respond to these things; the truth is that you cannot respond and are unwilling to admit it.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

You can't name a single actual new regulation created under Obama that is harming job creation, in the areas you listed, can you? You've been talking out your ass on this subject the entire time. Isn't that correct?

I would say that it's astounding, but the truth is, it really isn't astounding. It's par for the course for you and your side.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Quote:

The Conservative explanation for our current recession would be laughed at in a basic economics class.

It wouldn't be laughed at as much as you talking about creating jobs in the absence of an economic definition of a job would be in an advanced economics class.

I've asked you a few times now Cyclo to define a "job" from an economic point of view. Your silence on the matter speaks volumes.

Conservatives are not to be treated in that way. It's an ad hominum which, as you said, is "pretty ******* weak". And a bit dodgy too assuming you do know it.

1 Reply

@spendius,

spendius wrote:

Quote:
The Conservative explanation for our current recession would be laughed at in a basic economics class.

I've asked you a few times now Cyclo to define a "job" from an economic point of view. Your silence on the matter speaks volumes.

I don't recall a single instance of this happening. Perhaps you could link to it?

I've always considered the concept of 'job' to be so elementary, as to require no explanation. Certainly nobody else here has requested to be enlightened on such a basic point of human existence. Are you quite sure that you need me to do so - or are you just trying to change the subject?

In related news, I can't help but notice that the policies being pushed by the right-wing here are the same ones which are current screwing YOUR economy up pretty seriously.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

In related news, I can't help but notice that the policies being pushed by the right-wing here are the same ones which are current screwing YOUR economy up pretty seriously.

Cycloptichorn

The UK has a much lower level of public debt (relative to GDP) than the U.S. and a smaller surrent deficit as well. In addition the maturity of its debt is more than twice ours, giving them a significant degree of immunity from current turbulence in financial markets. The UK has already taken strong measures to curtail public spending - something we have so far been able to do. Its level of GDP growth is lower than ours but marginally higher than that of most Europeran governments.

It appears to me that, in a troubled world, they aren't doing badly at all.

2 Replies

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

In related news, I can't help but notice that the policies being pushed by the right-wing here are the same ones which are current screwing YOUR economy up pretty seriously.

Cycloptichorn

The UK has a much lower level of public debt (relative to GDP) than the U.S. and a smaller surrent deficit as well.

What?

The UK debt-to-GDP level is far higher than the US. Somewhere around 150% of their GDP.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2010/oct/18/deficit-debt-government-borrowing-data

They have two different rates they commonly quote when describing UK Debt-to-GDP: with and without financial sector intervention. You're certainly counting the US' interventions against our debt, so it only makes sense to count the UK as well.

The truth is that the current Austerity program in the UK is not working. It has destroyed growth and has caused MORE borrowing than before it was implemented.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/jun/04/george-osborne-plan-not-working

http://www.mindfulmoney.co.uk/wp/shaun-richards/the-uks-version-of-austerity-is-starting-to-look-rather-spendthriftwhilst-the-us-debt-ceiling-problem-remains-unresolved/

But don't let little things like easily verifiable facts screw with your narrative. Can't ask you to waste the 5 minutes that it took me to look things up before I responded to you.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

Obama '12?

NOPE!

0 Replies

Classic Dowd

Quote:

When I said, ‘Change we can believe in,’ I didn’t say, ‘Change we can believe in tomorrow,’ ” he told an audience at a Chicago fund-raiser on Wednesday. “Not, ‘Change we can believe in next week.’ We knew this was going to take time, because we’ve got this big, messy, tough democracy.”

True enough, but not F.D.R.-inspiring to a deflated and desperate nation that may face higher borrowing rates after the shock of the first credit downgrade in United States history.

Barack Obama blazed like Luke Skywalker in 2008, but he never learned to channel the Force. And now the Tea Party has run off with his light saber.

The dissonance of his promise and his reality is jarring.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/07/opinion/sunday/Dowd--The-Downgrade-Blues.html?ref=opinion

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

The UK has a much lower level of public debt (relative to GDP) than the U.S. and a smaller surrent deficit as well. In addition the maturity of its debt is more than twice ours....

That's true of the UK net debt (central government only) but not true when debt of all other economic agents (households, financial, and non-financial companies) is added to the net debt to obtain gross debt. UK gross debt to GDP ratio is over 400%, close to Japan's.

http://media.economist.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/original-size/20110730_WOC181.gif

There's an interactive graphic at the same link > http://www.economist.com/blogs/dailychart/2011/07/world-debt-guide
> showing gross debt/GDP ratios in the US, Canada, and Germany are all in the 200% to 300% range.

1 Reply

@High Seas,

That's interesting, and a point I hadn't considered.

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

georgeob1 wrote:

The UK has a much lower level of public debt (relative to GDP) than the U.S. and a smaller surrent deficit as well.

What?

The UK debt-to-GDP level is far higher than the US. Somewhere around 150% of their GDP.

You have to read definitions in statistical tables before you start throwing numbers around - or, as Socrates always starts "...let us define our terms.." George's statement referred to UK, US net debt/GDP (central government only) and is perfectly correct, as is his note on average debt maturities.

2 Replies

@High Seas,

Total Government Net Debt (% of GDP) for United Kingdom in year 2010 is 69.423 %.

Total Government Net Debt (% of GDP) for United States in year 2010 is 64.824 %.

[Total Government Net Debt (% of GDP) for Germany in year 2010 is 53.818 %.]

Data source: International Monetary Fund (IMF) via Economy Watch

2 Replies

@High Seas,

The markets judge solvency with yields. Anybody wiser than the markets should be loaded.

1 Reply

@Walter Hinteler,

Yes, Walter, and if you check the definitions used in the various tables, you'll see that the ones I just posted refer to GDP forecast for 2011, that the ones you posted refer to GDP for 2010, and that the 2010 (and several prior years) GDP statistics for the US have been revised downwards since - a revision not reflected in the IMF tables yet. You'll be familiar with Disraeli's observation "There are lies, there are damn lies, and then there are statistics" Smile

1 Reply

@spendius,

Yields are numbers along a single risk dimension, but there are at least three other relevant dimensions to risk of default:
- What currency is the debt denominated in? Japanese debt is enormous as a ratio to GDP but it's almost entirely in yen, and they can print those as needed.
- Who holds the debt? If the holders are primarily domestic households and financial companies - again Japan - they have domestic regulators and taxes offsetting low yields. The "sterling crises" in the past century came from foreign holders wanting to be paid in currencies other than sterling.
- Finally, how big is the total debt in comparison to assets of the borrower that can easily be monetized? That's where the crucial distinction between solvency (which you mention) and liquidity comes in - but in a crisis, such as we're in now, that distinction is lost.

1 Reply

@Walter Hinteler,

Walter - it can't possibly be you who marked down my answer to you; would the person who did tell us why he/she disagreed?! This is really making me laugh - the thread is afflicted by little pests who know they'll make themselves ridiculous if they attempt a post, so they downgrade posts of those who do Very Happy

0 Replies

@High Seas,

I've usually problems with statistics (see my university exams Embarrassed

), but really with those statistical forecasts.

1 Reply

@Walter Hinteler,

Even past statistics keep getting revised, so you're not alone in your difficulties - if that helps! Anyway, thank you for your link, there's a great cartoon in it Smile

http://www.economywatch.com/files/imagecache/story/story/economywatch-exclusive-fox-business-expert-on-the-us-debt-crisis.03-08_0.jpg

0 Replies

This is somewhat, perhaps, unrelated to Obama. It will be an interesting day in Wisconsin this coming Tuesday (Aug 9th). That is when six Republican state senators face recall elections in the aftermath of supporting Gov Walker's successful effort to curb rights of labor unions in the state. Two Dem senators face recall votes on Aug 16th after they fled the state in an effort to stall a vote. A 3rd Dem has already survived, comfortably, a recall.
Gov Walker, meanwhile, does not have to go through this because he has not been in office long enough.
Notes:
* Some polls show 3 of the Repubs behind and the other 3 tied. I would readily concede that these polls are probably not reliable at this point.
* $30Mn has been spent so far with most estimates saying the total will be more like $40Mn. Much of that comes from out of state.
* The Teaparty movement is actively involved. It will be interesting to see if their brand has been damaged by recent events on the national level.
* Labor has also been working hard, leading the effort to collect the 20K sigs on recall petitions in the districts in an average of 50+ days.
Turnout is crucial in the Repub held districts.
* It may be a stretch, but I wonder if we might see an early indication of voter anger with all politicians.
The Republican majority in the Wisconsin state senate could be in jeopardy.

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know