Is Obama really as stupid about economics as his recent statements imply he is?

Why do we have a 40-hour workweek? Why don't we explolit the economic resource of children under the age of sixteen?

Meanwhile, the point isn't over whether the greedy capitalist SHOULD have fired the fourth worker and forced the other three to get by. The point is that he DID do that, and that the resulting productivity gains are one of the factors associated with high unemployment.

 

How long did it take the pasta company to go from thousands of employees to twelve? What do you think pasta-makers laid off over that time period actually did once they had lost their jobs?

 

You have hit a central nerve point that is really at the crux of this Great Recession, and those that have preceded it since the fall of the Soviet Union. And it will sound strange, coming from me, an ardent right-winger, but when "we" made the "world safe for democracy", what we REALLY did was to make the world safe for capitalism -- and many of the features of that "safety" were wholesale disregard for workers, and abuse!

With the fall of the Soviet Union, it became possible for every Fortune 500 corporation to off-shore its operations, including industrial, service-oriented, and administrative. And with the growing corporate leverage, it became possible to make its dwindling domestic employees more "productive" -- i.e., realization of the bean-counters' wet dream of "one can do the work of two!", then... "one can do the work of three!"... then "one can do the work of four!", etc., etc.

This was all justified, of course, because everyone started using computers to make all processes more efficient, and while it did do that, it just as frequently meant that fewer workers were spending more time on computers doing work that should have been fairly apportioned among more people!

So how many people does it take to accomplish a given task? Do we apply this calculus to arrive at figure that stresses-out and burns-out an employee, destroys his ability to function as a human being, and wrecks his relationships with others, and his own life? The brutal application of pure capitalistic theory considers only profit motive, and nothing else! Return-on-investment is the only criterion that means anything, and as a result the lives of countless millions is thrown in the ditch because those masses of humanity aren't "needed" anymore....

I have to balance these considerations as I rail and rant against Socialism, for deep in the pit of my right-winger's heart, I know that if my precious capitalism weren't so brutal and utterly self-centered, no form of socialism could threaten it.

 

You make some very good points, Pollycy.

Capitalism needs to get away from its central theme of "Survival of the fittest". This theme is what has bought on most of the criticism of capitalism.

Unfortunately, the central theme of socialism has become "survival of the weakest". And so we pay people not to work and not to produce. We need to adopt an economic theme that is between these two extremes.

 

How do my mental laspses make anything you spew correct?

 

Quote: Originally Posted by Truth Detector
In other words it was a massive failure just like Obamacare is turning out to be.

The effects of this legislation are already being felt; insuring millions who otherwise would not be covered by the tax payer is hardly revenue neutral unless one uses leftist math which we all know by now is nothing more than a figment of their distorted imaginations. Of course you can pretend that it hasn’t had any effect by burying your head in the sand.

To no surprise, we will be paying more than we would have had there been no reform enacted. More people will have coverage through an expansion of Medicaid/CHIP and through subsidized plans to be offered in the new state insurance exchanges. Expanding coverage improves access and thus increases spending. Some are impressed by the fact that the increase in NHE will be only 0.9 percent more than the projected NHE would be without reform.

Keep in mind that without reform, our NHE would have increased from 17.8 percent of GDP (Gross Domestic Product) in 2010 to 20.8 percent in 2019. When it was decided to make health care reform a priority, one of the major reasons was that this increase was considered to be nearly intolerable. The PPACA will increase this even more – to 21.0 percent of GDP – an even less tolerable number. That amounts to a staggering $4,670 billion NHE in 2019 alone.

What should be even more alarming are some of the measures in the bill that kept these numbers from being even higher:

More of the story:

http://pnhp.org/blog/2010/04/26/cms-actuarys-report-on-financial-effects-of-ppaca/

The laughable part of your arguments and those you parrot is this notion that Government can do anything better or at lower cost than the private sector with competition.

How amusing that you wish to talk about “estimates” and “best guesses: when the reality of this bloated failure of an act that has cost the taxpayers of this nation another $1 trillion dollars and done nothing to actually reduce unemployment, stem the tide of foreclosures and created any jobs particularly the simple act of keeping up with the population growth.

But then when you support such a massive failure of Liberal ideology, I can hardly say I am surprised. The fact that those like you would now propose “Stimulus Jr.” and make similar laughable claims suggests a lunatic fringe mentality. So basically what the morons on the left are repackaging is that the BIGGER spending and relief program didn’t work, we must try a smaller version half the size and bury the taxpayers of this once great nation under an additional $500 billion in deficits.

I have to laugh at the meme that the spending was just not large enough. It is about as moronic as the Democrats claim that Republicans are fiscally irresponsible by having a $400 billion deficit fighting two wars but now with $1.5 trillion deficits the Democrats have shown how much more responsible they are.

2012 cannot get here soon enough.

Quote: Originally Posted by Truth Detector
Isn't it fascinating that Liberal Democrats clamor for more stimulus and tax increases when they are out of power, but when they had it all chose to do NOTHING; they couldn't even pass a budget. Why do you think that is 17th?

The federal fiscal year begins in October 1 and ends September 30th. Funny how liberals seldom get that part right. So based on your own words and as I stated, the Democrat controlled house and senate failed to pass a budget on time FY 2009 and 2010 as stated above and again failed in 2011.

Of course in typical laughably inept Liberal fashion; it was all Bush’s fault. You people just can’t help yourselves can you? You can’t pass budgets on time and in the last year they couldn’t get one out before they once again became a minority in the House, they can’t control their spending and have buried this nation in $15 trillion debt and $1.5 trillion deficits and when confronted with these obvious facts the only retort they can come up with is that it was the Republicans fault.

Carry on; it truly is a waste of time trying to get ANY honesty from Liberals.

 

What an amazing statement coming from a conservative particularly.

 

There you have it folks, nothing but deflections, hyperbole and overhyped leftist math and blaming Bush.

But when we look at the FACTS, there is nothing that can make this hopeless incompetent administration look good; even the wild eyed fantasies of uber liberal like 17th.

Idiot leftist talking points from uber liberals like 17th:

(1) Everything is so much better than the Bush years.
(2) The failure of liberals can be attributed to Bush.
(3) The mortgage collapse had nothing to do with liberals, it was all Bush's fault.
(4) Obama has created more jobs than Bush has; based on nothing more than fantastical leftist math.
(5) The spending of $1 trillion the federal government didn't have wasn't enough to move the economy in a positive direction.
(6) We need to spend more money we don't have and then it will work; trust us.
(7) it's all the fault of the greedy rich who have hoarded their wealth and not given enough to the leftist "deciders" who know better how to spend their hard earned wealth than they do.

Does this about summarize the idiot leftist talking points that constitute the Democrat party these days?

Meanwhile in the REAL world; people are still in fear of losing their jobs, the housing market continues to suffer, credit is harder than ever to get, gas prices are at all time highs, millions of unemployed have run through several massive extensions of jobless benefits and have now given up and this nation is now heading towards the $16 trillion debt mark and wallowing in record massive deficits and the world is LESS safe than it was when Obama entered office claiming he would be the "uniter" and repair our tarnished reputation.

How is that working in Iran and North Korea? How is that working in Europe?

Meanwhile, we are going to fret over the possibility that some of the loser women claiming Herman Cain is a pervert will actually bring forth credible evidence, or that Newt is not Conservative enough.

Frankly, Mickey Mouse would be a better candidate than this in experienced, arrogant smarmy clueless moron who now infests the White House with his leftist class envy divisive agenda.

Bush had more class and character in his little finger than the entire Democrat Party combined.

 

Just one quick question.
Are your opinions on the economy really as stupid as they seem to be to any rational person?

 

I have to laugh at how you keep quoting CBO charts and estimates as if they are some gospel when they have NEVER been accurate and have either grossly overestimated the revenue benefits of legislation or grossly under estimated the cost of legislation.

Can you provide any instances where the CBO projections where anywhere near accurate?

How about their projections for revenue growth? How about their projections for the cost of major legislation?

Here are few historic ones:

How Reliable are the CBO Cost Estimates for Healthcare Reform?

In the case of the Medicare Program, the government estimate was off by over 816%. If the CBO estimate for the Senate health care bill is off by the same percentage, then the price of reform may be as high as $7.74 trillion.

In the case of the Medicare Part A, the government estimate was off by 165%. If the CBO estimate for the Senate health care bill is off by the same percentage, then the price of reform may be as high as $2.24 trillion.

In the case of the Medicare Home Care Benefit, the government estimate was off by 150%. If the CBO estimate for the Senate health care bill is off by the same percentage, then the price of reform may be as high as $2.1 trillion.

In the case of Social Security pay outs, the government estimate was off by a massive 2,600%. If the CBO estimate for the Senate health care bill is off by the same percentage, then the price of reform may be as high as $22.89 trillion.

In the case of the ESRD Program, the government estimate was off by 129%. If the CBO estimate for the Senate health care bill is off by the same percentage, then the price of reform may be as high as $1.94 trillion.

In the case of the Medicaid DHS Program, the government estimate was off by 1,600%. If the CBO estimate for the Senate health care bill is off by the same percentage, then the price of reform may be as high as $14.4 trillion.

www.freedomworks.org/files/capitol_comment_CBO_scores

Taxes and the Budget: How accurate are short-run and long-run budget scenarios?

• Over the period 1983-2005, the average absolute error in the five-year revenue projection of the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) caused by changes in the economic and technical assumptions was 1.6 percent of GDP, which would be $219 billion at the 2007 level of GDP. Between the earliest official projection of the 2007 budget balance (in the ten-year projection of 1997) and the actual outcome, the projected balance varied over a range of $844 billion because of changes in economic and technical assumptions.

• If the CBO projection is too pessimistic in one period, it is extremely probable that it will be too pessimistic in the next period as well. Similarly, too much optimism in one period is likely to be repeated in the next. Thus one observes long streaks of overly pessimistic or overly optimistic projections.

• Especially large errors tend to occur after the fifth year of CBO’s ten-year projection period, and so one might question the prominence that CBO publications give to the second half of their projection periods. However, these projections serve an important role in estimating the longer-run effects of changes in tax and spending policies. Errors in the underlying economic and technical assumptions shift projections of aggregate revenue and outlays but usually have little effect on estimates of the effects of policy changes. Even so, it might be better to confine those longer-run assumptions to appendices in CBO reports, to avoid giving the appearance of false precision.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/background/taxes-budget/accuracy.cfm

So please spare us your desperate diatribes about "estimates" that have never been close to accurate, never will be close to accurate and merely parrot the idiot claims of the legislators that continue to spend this once great nation into oblivion.

 

As opposed to the manufactured left wing slop you parrot and dish out daily on this forum? How ironic don't you think?

 

Using Obama logic, it is more productive to hire more workers to do the same job than use less to do the same job, or invent machines that can do it faster and more efficiently. It is the same left wing slop you manufacture here about productivity; but then, this is the Marxist Communist model and we know how well that one worked don't we?

It is amusing to see leftists claim that by laying off workers in order to remain profitable under Obama's idiot policies this would be a bad thing. Of course the left has never liked profits or people getting rich. In their make believe world, Marxist "collective" ideology is the best and only failed because it just wasn't executed right. Those darned human traits kept getting in the way.

It is the same idiot ideology that hypocritically, arrogantly and ironically claims that Government is good and works, but ONLY if THEIR "deciders" are in charge.

It is amazingly ironic that many of the same morons on the left in the DNC who claim we should do what is best for the "people" are many times the same one's stuffing their pockets with taxpayer cash; Democrat operatives like Franklin Raines, Jamie Gorelick, Penny Pritzker and Jim Johnson come to mind.

 

Using Obama logic, it is more productive to hire more workers to do the same job than use less to do the same job, or invent machines that can do it faster and more efficiently. It is the same left wing slop you manufacture here about productivity; but then, this is the Marxist Communist model and we know how well that one worked don't we?

It is amusing to see leftists claim that by laying off workers in order to remain profitable under Obama's idiot policies this would be a bad thing. Of course the left has never liked profits or people getting rich. In their make believe world, Marxist "collective" ideology is the best and only failed because it just wasn't executed right. Those darned human traits kept getting in the way.

It is the same idiot ideology that hypocritically, arrogantly and ironically claims that Government is good and works, but ONLY if THEIR "deciders" are in charge.

It is amazingly ironic that many of the same morons on the left in the DNC who claim we should do what is best for the "people" are many times the same one's stuffing their pockets with taxpayer cash; Democrat operatives like Franklin Raines, Jamie Gorelick, Penny Pritzker and Jim Johnson come to mind.

 

You are very correct, Truth Detector!

Especially when you day, "It is amusing to see leftists claim that by laying off workers in order to remain profitable under Obama's idiot policies this would be a bad thing. Of course the left has never liked profits or people getting rich. In their make believe world, Marxist "collective" ideology is the best and only failed because it just wasn't executed right. Those darned human traits kept getting in the way."

Thanks for sharing!

 

Great question, erehiimjered.

Only avowed socialists like Obama actually thnik this way!

 

Using Obama logic, it is more productive to hire more workers to do the same job than use less to do the same job, or invent machines that can do it faster and more efficiently. It is the same left wing slop you manufacture here about productivity; but then, this is the Marxist Communist model and we know how well that one worked don't we?

It is amusing to see leftists claim that by laying off workers in order to remain profitable under Obama's idiot policies this would be a bad thing. Of course the left has never liked profits or people getting rich. In their make believe world, Marxist "collective" ideology is the best and only failed because it just wasn't executed right. Those darned human traits kept getting in the way.

It is the same idiot ideology that hypocritically, arrogantly and ironically claims that Government is good and works, but ONLY if THEIR "deciders" are in charge.

It is amazingly ironic that many of the same morons on the left in the DNC who claim we should do what is best for the "people" are many times the same one's stuffing their pockets with taxpayer cash; Democrat operatives like Franklin Raines, Jamie Gorelick, Penny Pritzker and Jim Johnson come to mind.

 

Speaking of impressing, why don't you impress us with something OTHER than spamming and trolling. That would REALLY impress many of us.

 

Wholesale disregard for workers??? Brutal and utterly self-centered?? Obviously the lamestream media has successfully disengaged your brain from your common sense.

There is no such evidence of such wholesale non-caring from the Capitalist side.

That went out the window during the steam engine days.

Please provide some pertinent examples to support your claims above; my first one will be the Gates Foundation......there are thousands more where that came from illustrating BIG Capitalists trying to do the right thing by their communities.

Treating Companies and Capitalists as some faceless cold hearted entity is more the realm of fantasy and leftist absurdity than it is reality.

 

You consider yourself a rational person making such irrational claims about others? What part of James's comments and opinions irrational? Or is this another fabulous example of "just because you say so?"

 

If that video is real, that is amazing. People should not be allowed to vote until they take a short, simple issues/candidates test. It should be a new Amendment to the Constitution, if necessary.

 

Even though it has very little to do with the Great Bush Recession -- an event that was entirely unnecessary and avoidable -- the larger point is well enough taken. "Free for capitalism" has always been the cry of liberators from this country, and we've certainly "liberated" and then "exploited" plenty of them in our time.

The breakup of the Soviet Union into new nation states and the collapse of its hold over Eastern European nations was one factor in increasing the mobility of capital (which is the actual problem), but there were others including such things as changing aspirations in South America and Southeast Asia and the penetration of digital capability into areas where no rapid or reliable means of communication had been present before. By whatever means however, the frontiers of where one could profitably locate the physical and other assets of production have expanded. The US has always been haven #1, but now there are many other areas that are almost as good and potentially better depending on circumstances.

Right-wingers are forever babbling on about companies moving around because of corporate tax rates. This is junk. Companies locate facilities based on expected overall profitability, taxes at the levels that they are being among the smaller factors in that equation. A larger one is the availablilty, quality, and affordability of the necessary local labor force, and the US gets in some trouble here. While our edge may be dwindling, we are still a paragon in terms of high end workers. We have vast pools of educated, innovative, dedicated professional level workers. But our cultural values grew up to support a fair shake for all workers, and the cultures in many other countries did not. They may enjoy a comparative advantage in terms of affordability in these ranges as the result.

We have two basic options in such a situation. We can force our labor standards and values sharply down -- this is the option that corporate-backed Republicans have been enthusiastically pursuing for 30 years and more -- or we can work to force the labor standards and values in other areas up. Pretty much no one but a few unions has been working on this option at all.

There is a third option of course, and that is to say that the moving hand has writ and moved on, and what it wrote is that US workers are simply too valuable to be used in many sorts of employment anymore. Simple manufacturing and assembly jobs can be as reliably carried out at lower cost using robots or a typical worker in Thailand or Indonesia instead, and Americans should not expect to have jobs at this level anymore. What this should imply is a higher level of (valuable) leisure time, the Holy Grail of labor-saving devices from time immemorial. But we aren't pursuing more leisure time. We're doing the opposite. We're encouraging people to have more jobs, work more hours, and extend their working careers over more years just in order to keep up. Meanwhile, the funds necessary to support additional leisure time are being hogged by rich people who already have dozens of times what even a well-to-do person would actually need. Thus, rather than sharing the load, we end up forcing the undesirable leisure of full-time unemployment on an unfortunately selected few, and some think the pittance of support we provide them should be taken away. This is not a sensible direction to be going in. We should be taxing the wealthy (in particular) and using the proceeds to fund the earlier retirements, shorter workweeks, and fewer jobs per person that are needed in order to create opportunities for those who won't be able to outpace a robot or a typical worker in Thailand or Indonesia at the present price of eggs. If we don't, the economic and social divides in this country will grow only worse and worse, and we will never again be a nation at peace.

[Note: This is an outline, not an endorsement. It is some past, some present, and some future of a particular problem as seen from a particular viewpoint. The idea is merely to make some people (i.e., the ones who are capable of it) think.]

 

You seem to be enamored of markets, not capitalism. Everybody uses markets these days. But markets have no value systems. They are totally amoral and perfectly capable of settling at persistemt equilibria that are nothing short of devastating in terms of social welfare. Markets are like Wall Street. There needs to be oversight and regulation, or they will sooner or later end up killing you.

 

This is not the central theme of either evolution or capitalism. The central theme of capitalism is to create profit that can then be used to create more capital. More capital is the end and purpose of capitalism. That's why its called that.

Yes, the old, the infirm, the disabled, and their dependents are supposed to be able to survive under the systems you call "socialism". You act like that's a flaw.

 

They don't. I'm the one who makes what I post correct. What you post is incomprehensible rant and gibberish based on worse than speculation, gossip, and rumor. Your posts are not worth reading.

 

Are you agreeing with Obama that ATM's and Kiosks have caused a downturn in bank employment particularly at the teller level?