Why do people think the economy is good?

There is an illusion of economic recovery in the US due to a few critical factors:

1. Media hype. The pro-Obama side of the media loves to tout the stock market bubble and the artificially lowered unemployment figures as proof of recovery.
2. The public has the memory span of a retarded goldfish. Most people have trouble remembering the state of the economy last year, never mind 5 or 10 years ago. So they have no frame of reference to decide that "now" is better than "back then", simply because they don't remember "back then".
3. The oil crash. The price of commodities has been at record lows in the last few years and this means cheaper stuff for the average consumer. Along with tech advancements that help make the same tech gadget cheaper, the common folk feel that they are getting more for less, even if statistically they are getting less for more.

The pubic is easily deceived into believe one thing or another.

 

You realize this is ridiculous hyperbole, right?

Our economy is nowhere near "centrally planned." The government doesn't tell anyone what to produce, or how much, unless the government is the buyer of the thing in question (say, fighter planes). We are so far from a "centrally planned" economy that simply uttering the phrase discredits you.

 

No, I don't think it's at all exaggerated. What do you call monetary policy?

 

Conservatives are always griping about people sucking on the teat of government.

Sorry to hear it. I work for contractors, and was a contractor at one time. Contracts came and went, and I knew it was part of the business I chose to be in. Contracts are not intended to be forever.

 

Um ... okay. So what? You were a government contractor, and the government decided to stop paying for whatever you were doing. How is that an indictment of the economy or anything like that? It's just life.

I was a contractor for Thomson Reuters for about a year. Then they hit a tough spot, and decided, as a matter of policy, to fire nearly all their contractors. I didn't take that as a sign of broader things; I took it as life as contractor.

 

Did you read my post? I didn't complain. I moved on. I warned my bosses of the changes and they didn't listen. I saw it coming and was prepared.

Sucking on the teat, huh? Not sure where that came from.

 

Income tells the real story.
Lost factory work means many are working low wage retail instead.

 

Likely...it is a matter of perspective and comparison.

The economy is significantly healthier than it was in 2008....hard to imagine how it could be worse.

 

Did I say it was an indictment of the economy? I said it was a policy decision that directly affected me. Did you read any animosity from me towards Obama or anyone else in my post? Did I not say I made it work out for my benefit? What exactly is your problem?

 

You realize you are incorrect right?

The agriculture system proves you wrong........

 

Oil and gas jobs are plentiful, and will only fall off as OPEC keeps prices down. I'm in the energy industry.

opinion, that doesn't reflect a) the jobs created from the ACA or b) how many of those jobs will be from people retiring, to enjoy their golden years, instead of having to punch a time card. And for the long term unemployed, it will allow for people to get back to work.

http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-b...are-act-is-helping-americans-and-creating-new

http://www.factcheck.org/2014/02/lost-jobs-from-obamacare/

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/making-sense/affordable-care-act-jobs-destroyed-jobs-opened/

 

I read it. I'd have to see the legislation that cut funding to your sector, to truly believe it.

It came from the Reaganisms, that sound "truthy", but are really nonsense, as government generally does a lot of services that are necessary for the economy to run, the military to keep us relatively safe, and so on. I have nothing against government contractors at all. I just made my money in the more volatile private sector.

 

Trying to keep the money supply in sync with economic activity. Too little money strangles growth; too much money feeds inflation. All monetary policy tries to do is keep the supply at a point that encourages growth without feeding excess inflation.

What part of monetary policy tells people what to produce, and how much?

 

The government tells farmers what to grow and how much? Interesting. Please document that.

Price supports and paying farmers not to put acreage into production are incentives, not orders. I think the entire agriculture price support system should probably go away, but it's not an example of a planned economy.

And even if it were, agriculture is just one sector of our economy -- and a small sector at that. Agriculture accounts for just 1.2% of our economy.
https://www.quandl.com/c/economics/agriculture-share-of-gdp-by-country

Thus, pointing to agriculture doesn't even come close to demonstrating that our economy is "centrally planned".

 

The government has priced fixed agriculture for a very long time.......
And they still are.......

I'm not saying it is 100% centrally planned..........but they damn sure manipulate the hell out of it.

 

Central planning comes in forms other than controlling production, wages and distribution and prices. Today, it mostly comes by way of monetary policy and regulation.

 

The Bush tax cuts (which went to EVERYONE WHO PAID TAXES) had two effects:
1. They got MORE ACTUAL REVENUE from the top taxpayers
2. They created a record expansion of high paying job creation, 52 months consecutively.

 

I'm not referring to the tax cuts. I'm talking about the year the government took in more than it spent and sent us a check for overpayment into the Treasury. That was a trip.

 

Um, no it doesn't. That's what "central planning" MEANS.

That is not even close to "central planning".

Before central banks, the money supply was determined by how much money the government printed. Was that economy "centrally planned" too? Of course not.

Your definition of "central planning" is so inclusive, you've rendered it meaningless.

 

Actually, that surplus myth is an urban legend. It never happened.
http://www.craigsteiner.us/articles/16

 

No, your definition is so limited that you refuse to acknowledge monetary policy and regulation as having the same effects as controlling production. Monetary policy is less direct than traditional central planning models of the socialist variety. But that doesn't mean that few individuals in government (some unelected) aren't making decisions that have a very substantial and direct impact on the economy.

 

The economy is doing better because of the Obama wealth gap.
Progressive love bring up how good the economy is doing while complaining about the wealth gap. Lol.
Obama is doing such a great job with the economy the wealth gap had become larger then ever before. Yet I'm sure it's Obama's fault.
The economy is doing so well because Wall Street and banks are allowed under Obama to steal and bet with the people's money. Thanks to Holder officially claiming they are to big to prosecute.
Gamble on Garth.
Gamble on Wayne.

 

We're still not talking about the same thing. This was not the Clinton surplus. It was a year or two into the Bush administration. I'll dig it up.

 

you're right, of course.

And, the growth of the money supply hasn't caused inflation since the start of the liquidity trap. So, everything that most people think of in economics, is turned upside down, to a degree, currently.

 

Monetary policy has nowhere near the same effect as controlling production. Good grief!

In a centrally planned economy, the government decides what will be produced, and how much. Monetary policy doesn't even go NEAR anything like that.

Extremely heavy regulation could start to get you down the road toward de facto central planning. But we are so laughably far away from that, it's ridiculous to claim it.

Merely "having a substantial effect on the economy" isn't central planning.