Jump to content

Job summit? More like job valley.


flaps15

Recommended Posts

Club for Growth: Freedom, Not Summits, Will Create Jobs

 

Chocola: “We already had a jobs summit in this country – it was called the 1980s.”

 

WASHINGTON – Club for Growth President Chris Chocola today made the following statement about President Obama’s so-called “Jobs Summit” at the White House:

 

“The American people do not need a daylong seminar on how to create jobs, least of all from many of the people responsible for creating this recession in the first place. We already had a large and successful jobs summit in this country: it was called the 1980s.”

 

“The failed Obama stimulus has proven once again that government cannot create jobs, except perhaps fake ones in fictional congressional districts. Real jobs are created when real entrepreneurs have a realistic expectation of return on their investments – whether new employees, new equipment, or new businesses.

 

“As long as the next trillion-dollar program, bailout, tax increase, or corporatist handout hangs over the economy, businesses have no reason to risk their capital on hiring, investment, or expansion. You can’t dangle a piano over the sidewalk and expect people to stroll along underneath as if everything is normal.

 

“We know what creates jobs – lower taxes, less regulation, limited government, and a free, fair, and competitive market. Unless and until the president and his allies in Congress drop their campaign to take over the economy, the economy will not function as it desperately wants to, and as the American people desperately need it to.”

Link to post
Share on other sites

Uh, yeah, we need lower taxes and more deregulation. That has worked fan-fucking-tastically, and has nothing to do with the current economic mess. But a free, fair and competitive market? Fo shizzle. Too bad thats completely at odds with the notion of deregulation ... and of over-regulation.

 

The middle path, grasshopper, the middle path.

Link to post
Share on other sites

While President Obama is having his jobs summit today, National Review Online decided to have one of our own. We asked some of our experts: What’s a realistic policy that could actually create jobs? Who could take it up as a campaign?

 

Get a Job

Link to post
Share on other sites
Club for Growth: Freedom, Not Summits, Will Create Jobs

 

Chocola: “We already had a jobs summit in this country – it was called the 1980s.”

 

WASHINGTON – Club for Growth President Chris Chocola today made the following statement about President Obama’s so-called “Jobs Summit” at the White House:

 

“The American people do not need a daylong seminar on how to create jobs, least of all from many of the people responsible for creating this recession in the first place. We already had a large and successful jobs summit in this country: it was called the 1980s.”

 

“The failed Obama stimulus has proven once again that government cannot create jobs, except perhaps fake ones in fictional congressional districts. Real jobs are created when real entrepreneurs have a realistic expectation of return on their investments – whether new employees, new equipment, or new businesses.

 

“As long as the next trillion-dollar program, bailout, tax increase, or corporatist handout hangs over the economy, businesses have no reason to risk their capital on hiring, investment, or expansion. You can’t dangle a piano over the sidewalk and expect people to stroll along underneath as if everything is normal.

 

“We know what creates jobs – lower taxes, less regulation, limited government, and a free, fair, and competitive market. Unless and until the president and his allies in Congress drop their campaign to take over the economy, the economy will not function as it desperately wants to, and as the American people desperately need it to.”

 

When the "flap" in my toilet tank degrades by "15" % . . . I replace it. This brings the toilet back to its proper efficiency and provides work for me or my plumber. Similarly, and on a grander scale, I think most people would agree that we have many components of our nation's infrastructure which are in desperate need of large scale and expensive repairs. Do you think that lowering taxes will reinforce the bridge over the Mississippi River to Burlington, Iowa? Do you really think we would be better served by reducing inspections or removing the structural safety guidelines (regulation), or by laying off the government inspectors responsible for the bridge (limited government)? Which component of the free, fair and competitive market should take responsibility for the bridge and its maintenance? The shipping companies who use the river to move grain downriver for export? They don't need the bridge, but it would surely disrupt their operations when it finally collapses and chokes off river traffic. Perhaps the plant manager at the riverside J I Case factory which needs the bridge to bring materials in and ship their newly assembled backhoes out should assume responsibility. As a conservative, you may pine desperately for those free market options, since they would appear to save me money as a taxpayer . . . but I have my doubts as to how those "markets" are going to improve current government efficiencies or share the responsibility pie.

 

We currently have infrastructure degradation from coast to coast, and millions of Americans out of work. We all benefit from our national, state and local infrastructure and we all know that lots of stuff needs fixin . . . and we know that getting people back to work will move us out of this depression . . . so why are you conservatives so dead set against both the people and the physical well being of your country? Oh, that's right . . . you need President Obama to fail. I forgot. My bad.

Link to post
Share on other sites
When the "flap" in my toilet tank degrades by "15" % . . . I replace it. This brings the toilet back to its proper efficiency and provides work for me or my plumber. Similarly, and on a grander scale, I think most people would agree that we have many components of our nation's infrastructure which are in desperate need of large scale and expensive repairs. Do you think that lowering taxes will reinforce the bridge over the Mississippi River to Burlington, Iowa? Do you really think we would be better served by reducing inspections or removing the structural safety guidelines (regulation), or by laying off the government inspectors responsible for the bridge (limited government)? Which component of the free, fair and competitive market should take responsibility for the bridge and its maintenance? The shipping companies who use the river to move grain downriver for export? They don't need the bridge, but it would surely disrupt their operations when it finally collapses and chokes off river traffic. Perhaps the plant manager at the riverside J I Case factory which needs the bridge to bring materials in and ship their newly assembled backhoes out should assume responsibility. As a conservative, you may pine desperately for those free market options, since they would appear to save me money as a taxpayer . . . but I have my doubts as to how those "markets" are going to improve current government efficiencies or share the responsibility pie.

 

We currently have infrastructure degradation from coast to coast, and millions of Americans out of work. We all benefit from our national, state and local infrastructure and we all know that lots of stuff needs fixin . . . and we know that getting people back to work will move us out of this depression . . . so why are you conservatives so dead set against both the people and the physical well being of your country? Oh, that's right . . . you need President Obama to fail. I forgot. My bad.

 

No we need President Obama to come up with real answers that don't kill business and destroy jobs. He could start with the repeal of the death tax to help save existing and future small businesses. And I've said all along, instead of the failed stimulus, why didn't they pass an infrastructure bill? Thanks, apology accepted.

Link to post
Share on other sites
“We know what creates jobs – lower taxes, less regulation, limited government, and a free, fair, and competitive market. ”[/i]

 

Straight out of the Palin Playbook. OK, anyone care to take a shot at how you achieve a free, fair and competitive market with less regulation and limited government?

 

I mean it's not like we didn't just get steamrolled yesterday by uh, was it the government? Some guys on a Street? A Wall? Bunch of Brothers? AI AI OWE?

 

Yeah for simple solutions and simplistic slogans.

Link to post
Share on other sites
When the "flap" in my toilet tank degrades by "15" % . . . I replace it. This brings the toilet back to its proper efficiency and provides work for me or my plumber. Similarly, and on a grander scale, I think most people would agree that we have many components of our nation's infrastructure which are in desperate need of large scale and expensive repairs. Do you think that lowering taxes will reinforce the bridge over the Mississippi River to Burlington, Iowa? Do you really think we would be better served by reducing inspections or removing the structural safety guidelines (regulation), or by laying off the government inspectors responsible for the bridge (limited government)? Which component of the free, fair and competitive market should take responsibility for the bridge and its maintenance? The shipping companies who use the river to move grain downriver for export? They don't need the bridge, but it would surely disrupt their operations when it finally collapses and chokes off river traffic. Perhaps the plant manager at the riverside J I Case factory which needs the bridge to bring materials in and ship their newly assembled backhoes out should assume responsibility. As a conservative, you may pine desperately for those free market options, since they would appear to save me money as a taxpayer . . . but I have my doubts as to how those "markets" are going to improve current government efficiencies or share the responsibility pie.

 

We currently have infrastructure degradation from coast to coast, and millions of Americans out of work. We all benefit from our national, state and local infrastructure and we all know that lots of stuff needs fixin . . . and we know that getting people back to work will move us out of this depression . . . so why are you conservatives so dead set against both the people and the physical well being of your country? Oh, that's right . . . you need President Obama to fail. I forgot. My bad.

 

No we need President Obama to come up with real answers that don't kill business and destroy jobs. He could start with the repeal of the death tax to help save existing and future small businesses. And I've said all along, instead of the failed stimulus, why didn't they pass an infrastructure bill? Thanks, apology accepted.

 

So Flapper . . . please bear with me as I have been gone awhile . . . you are a FOX News watching, Glenn Beck worshipping conservatoid . . . and you want President Obama to pass an infrastructure bill . . . putting, ostensibly, millions more Americans on the government payroll. You also think that the stimulus bill failed . . . but in your view it would have worked out better if the recipient corporations had enjoyed fewer regulations and less oversight. Right. And as we head into 2010, a year with 0% estate tax thanks to the EGTRRA "Throw momma from the train" Act of 2001 . . . which essentially repealed the "death tax" . . . you are still fixated upon a nebulous and otherworldly plot to kill off small businesses with a tax that still exists only in your head.

 

Do you have any other wacky notions down in that rabbit hole, or have I summed it up?

Link to post
Share on other sites
So Flapper . . . please bear with me as I have been gone awhile . . . you are a FOX News watching, Glenn Beck worshipping conservatoid . . . and you want President Obama to pass an infrastructure bill . . . putting, ostensibly, millions more Americans on the government payroll. You also think that the stimulus bill failed . . . but in your view it would have worked out better if the recipient corporations had enjoyed fewer regulations and less oversight. Right. And as we head into 2010, a year with 0% estate tax thanks to the EGTRRA "Throw momma from the train" Act of 2001 . . . which essentially repealed the "death tax" . . . you are still fixated upon a nebulous and otherworldly plot to kill off small businesses with a tax that still exists only in your head.

 

Do you have any other wacky notions down in that rabbit hole, or have I summed it up?

 

Would appear that you're still gone or still voyeuristically glaring at seaweed. What's that about? Haven't watched tv in at least 6 years, outside of glances in passing at public eating and drinking establishments. I'm not a conservative, never professed to be. Just recently (3 months ago) completed two new small (green) businesses (started with @ 40) now 80 employees per facility outside of the US because of non US government incentives, heaps of US government indecision and no guarantee on the future direction of business tax laws. (read: Van Jones idiot back in March) I never said I wanted an infrastructure bill, but it would have been far more HONEST of the powers that be to attempt and get bi-partisan votes than to lie about stimulating the economy and job promotion in order to have a cash cow of pork dollars (uhh... that would be cash pig, wouldn't it? Hmmm..) to pay off senators to promote government health care under the guise of helping the populace. Get back to me when your Obama Ecstasy wears off or minimally when you know what the heck you're talking about. Oh look! Seaweed! There it goes.....

Link to post
Share on other sites

"but it would have been far more HONEST of the powers that be to attempt and get bi-partisan votes than to lie about stimulating the economy and job promotion in order to have a cash cow of pork dollars to pay off senators to promote government health care under the guise of helping the populace." -Flaps

 

 

That rabbit may have dug a hole in a mushroom patch.

Link to post
Share on other sites
"but it would have been far more HONEST of the powers that be to attempt and get bi-partisan votes than to lie about stimulating the economy and job promotion in order to have a cash cow of pork dollars to pay off senators to promote government health care under the guise of helping the populace." -Flaps

 

That rabbit may have dug a hole in a mushroom patch.

 

Whatever that means. Sounds like the both of you have been reading too much Dodgson instead of paying attention to the real world. However... looks as thought the "summit" may have enlightened someone.

 

So Obama changes his tune. It's not the government's fault. Today, he said, "While I believe that government has a critical role in creating the conditions for economic growth, ultimately true economic recovery is only going to come from the private sector."-From CNN

 

Oh and again for about the fortieth time it's flaps with a small "f". ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites
So Flapper . . . please bear with me as I have been gone awhile . . . you are a FOX News watching, Glenn Beck worshipping conservatoid . . . and you want President Obama to pass an infrastructure bill . . . putting, ostensibly, millions more Americans on the government payroll. You also think that the stimulus bill failed . . . but in your view it would have worked out better if the recipient corporations had enjoyed fewer regulations and less oversight. Right. And as we head into 2010, a year with 0% estate tax thanks to the EGTRRA "Throw momma from the train" Act of 2001 . . . which essentially repealed the "death tax" . . . you are still fixated upon a nebulous and otherworldly plot to kill off small businesses with a tax that still exists only in your head.

 

Do you have any other wacky notions down in that rabbit hole, or have I summed it up?

 

Would appear that you're still gone or still voyeuristically glaring at seaweed. What's that about? Haven't watched tv in at least 6 years, outside of glances in passing at public eating and drinking establishments. I'm not a conservative, never professed to be. Just recently (3 months ago) completed two new small (green) businesses (started with @ 40) now 80 employees per facility outside of the US because of non US government incentives, heaps of US government indecision and no guarantee on the future direction of business tax laws. (read: Van Jones idiot back in March) I never said I wanted an infrastructure bill, but it would have been far more HONEST of the powers that be to attempt and get bi-partisan votes than to lie about stimulating the economy and job promotion in order to have a cash cow of pork dollars (uhh... that would be cash pig, wouldn't it? Hmmm..) to pay off senators to promote government health care under the guise of helping the populace. Get back to me when your Obama Ecstasy wears off or minimally when you know what the heck you're talking about. Oh look! Seaweed! There it goes.....

 

So Flapper . . . let me get this straight . . . you are not a conservative . . . you quit watching TV after Fonzie jumped the shark . . . you were bribed by a foreign government to start a business there because the US, which you've traitorously abandoned, wouldn't give you guarantees . . . and you never said you wanted an infrastructure bill even though you just complained that President Obama didn't pass an infrastructure bill . . . and you think it is dishonest that "the powers that be" aren't being bi-partisan so that they can lie and bribe each other to promote a healthcare plan that benefits no one including themselves . . .

 

Makes perfect sense to me . . . methinks it's time to go flaps up and take that wax winged craft of yours high up into the sun.

Link to post
Share on other sites
“We know what creates jobs – lower taxes, less regulation, limited government, and a free, fair, and competitive market. ”[/i]

 

Straight out of the Palin Playbook. OK, anyone care to take a shot at how you achieve a free, fair and competitive market with less regulation and limited government?

I mean it's not like we didn't just get steamrolled yesterday by uh, was it the government? Some guys on a Street? A Wall? Bunch of Brothers? AI AI OWE?

 

Yeah for simple solutions and simplistic slogans.

mavericky bump.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the only jobs Obama's Administration is capable of creating are these kinds....

 

Government Jobs

 

Disgusting.

 

And another thing...does everybody realize that all these government employees have GREAT healthcare insurance that is partially, if not fully, paid for by taxpayers. Yet there is no mention of giving unisured access to the same insurance plans that taxpayers are ALREADY supporting.

 

Disgusting.

 

Hroth

Link to post
Share on other sites
So Flapper . . . let me get this straight . . . you are not a conservative . . . you quit watching TV after Fonzie jumped the shark . . . you were bribed by a foreign government to start a business there because the US, which you've traitorously abandoned, wouldn't give you guarantees . . . and you never said you wanted an infrastructure bill even though you just complained that President Obama didn't pass an infrastructure bill . . . and you think it is dishonest that "the powers that be" aren't being bi-partisan so that they can lie and bribe each other to promote a healthcare plan that benefits no one including themselves . . .

 

Makes perfect sense to me . . . methinks it's time to go flaps up and take that wax winged craft of yours high up into the sun.

 

Like I said: " Get back to me when your Obama Ecstasy wears off or minimally when you know what the heck you're talking about."

 

....or go Here. They've been producing great results, I hear.

Link to post
Share on other sites
"but it would have been far more HONEST of the powers that be to attempt and get bi-partisan votes than to lie about stimulating the economy and job promotion in order to have a cash cow of pork dollars to pay off senators to promote government health care under the guise of helping the populace." -Flaps

 

That rabbit may have dug a hole in a mushroom patch.

 

Whatever that means. Sounds like the both of you have been reading too much Dodgson instead of paying attention to the real world. However... looks as thought the "summit" may have enlightened someone.

 

So Obama changes his tune. It's not the government's fault. Today, he said, "While I believe that government has a critical role in creating the conditions for economic growth, ultimately true economic recovery is only going to come from the private sector."-From CNN

 

Oh and again for about the fortieth time it's flaps with a small "f". ;)

 

That article never said Obama was changing his tune. You

seem to think so, but you are going to have to cite

some quote of his where he said something to the contrary.

I don't recall him ever saying that "ulitimately true

economic recovery is only going to come from the public

sector."

 

You mentioned before about how your businesses were delayed

in their overseas startups 4 months because this administration

could not guarentee state and federal tax rates and healthcare

costs for 10 years out. It just doesn't make a lot of sense.

You actually asked the Obama administration to guarantee

what they have no power to control 10 years out? They won't

even be in power that long, and that's just for starters.

 

You have a very, very limited understanding of our system

of government if this is so. I hope for your sake you studied the system

of government in the places you are operating better than

you did this one.

 

cite

Link to post
Share on other sites
"but it would have been far more HONEST of the powers that be to attempt and get bi-partisan votes than to lie about stimulating the economy and job promotion in order to have a cash cow of pork dollars to pay off senators to promote government health care under the guise of helping the populace." -Flaps

 

That rabbit may have dug a hole in a mushroom patch.

 

Whatever that means. Sounds like the both of you have been reading too much Dodgson instead of paying attention to the real world. However... looks as thought the "summit" may have enlightened someone.

 

So Obama changes his tune. It's not the government's fault. Today, he said, "While I believe that government has a critical role in creating the conditions for economic growth, ultimately true economic recovery is only going to come from the private sector."-From CNN

 

Oh and again for about the fortieth time it's flaps with a small "f". ;)

 

That article never said Obama was changing his tune. You

seem to think so, but you are going to have to cite

some quote of his where he said something to the contrary.

I don't recall him ever saying that "ulitimately true

economic recovery is only going to come from the public

sector."

 

You mentioned before about how your businesses were delayed

in their overseas startups 4 months because this administration

could not guarentee state and federal tax rates and healthcare

costs for 10 years out. It just doesn't make a lot of sense.

You actually asked the Obama administration to guarantee

what they have no power to control 10 years out? They won't

even be in power that long, and that's just for starters.

 

You have a very, very limited understanding of our system

of government if this is so. I hope for your sake you studied the system

of government in the places you are operating better than

you did this one.

 

cite

Excuse me? What part of enlightened and changing are synonymous? You are putting words in my mouth that were never said. I simply point out that during another info. seminar, that this/our President is using to learn about the real world of business and he seemed to demonstrate a bit of non-anti-business rhetoric and you surmise that I think he's changing his mind? All that I'm looking to see is if he is in fact, truly, a pragmatic leader or, the bullshitter I believe him to be. You guys can't even accept a compliment well. As minute as it may have been.

 

Tell me Mark do you work for yourself or someone else? Do you understand the price of risk in the starting of a new business? Have you any people besides family who's lives you are responsible for? Do you know what it's like to lay awake at night knowing that if you close the plant you'll be hated the rest of your life only because it was the best decision for all involved? Yet you stay open just to make it past the holidays for the benefit of your employees (loyal or otherwise) even though it may cause major problems both emotionally and/or financially for your own family and your future? Do you know what it's like to look an employee in the eye a tell them their fired after you've watched them and their family grow over the past ten years? I DO. Sometimes on a daily basis.

 

You know.... I could care less what you believe personally because there is nothing that I've read to show you have contributed to any of the ideas of fixing this economy outside of occasional liberal party line or negativeness toward the free market system. You have no business acumen that I'm aware of or have demonstrated in your posts. Your posts do however, seem to thrive on finding fault with anyone that you disagree with and changing the subject till it puts you in your perceived advantageous self-aggrandizing position on these threads. You have the temerity to judge me because of some posts on a forum website? Good.. for.. you......

 

I come here for entertainment and can only chuckle when I read your pompous bullshit. I understand our system of government just fine. What I don't understand is the system of giving to those that do not function outside of, or without government assistance, and even then not contributing to society as a whole. I may be from the "so called" party of no, but you my friend are from the party of theft, fabrications and of selfish disregard for those you think are beneath or not as smart as you. You and your liberal brethren are what is truly wrong with this country. Hey but what the heck, you'll figure it out eventually or get kicked out of office and not understand why. Hey, the good news is, I hear Putin's going for President for life. You could always move there and help him out. It may entail some real work, but you'll adjust.

f15

Link to post
Share on other sites
Uh, yeah, we need lower taxes and more deregulation. That has worked fan-fucking-tastically, and has nothing to do with the current economic mess. But a free, fair and competitive market? Fo shizzle. Too bad thats completely at odds with the notion of deregulation ... and of over-regulation.

 

The middle path, grasshopper, the middle path.

 

Am I going to have to drag out my copy of the Economic Report of the President again to show that we have not had a problem with insufficient government revenues, but with excessive spending?

Link to post
Share on other sites
“We know what creates jobs – lower taxes, less regulation, limited government, and a free, fair, and competitive market. ”[/i]

 

Straight out of the Palin Playbook. OK, anyone care to take a shot at how you achieve a free, fair and competitive market with less regulation and limited government?

I mean it's not like we didn't just get steamrolled yesterday by uh, was it the government? Some guys on a Street? A Wall? Bunch of Brothers? AI AI OWE?

 

Yeah for simple solutions and simplistic slogans.

mavericky bump.

 

Sure, you don't change the rules to encourage people to take out loans they have no chance of paying back, to start.

 

As for "limited government" that refers to restrictions on defined government powers. You know, like not using the power to tax as an excuse to dictate what must be done with money left untaxed. The benefits of checks and balances on political powers seem obvious to me, but maybe I could be educated by turning your question around:

 

OK, anyone care to take a shot at how you achieve a free, fair and competitive market with MORE regulation and UNLIMITED government?

Link to post
Share on other sites
“We know what creates jobs – lower taxes, less regulation, limited government, and a free, fair, and competitive market. ”[/i]

 

Straight out of the Palin Playbook. OK, anyone care to take a shot at how you achieve a free, fair and competitive market with less regulation and limited government?

I mean it's not like we didn't just get steamrolled yesterday by uh, was it the government? Some guys on a Street? A Wall? Bunch of Brothers? AI AI OWE?

 

Yeah for simple solutions and simplistic slogans.

mavericky bump.

 

Sure, you don't change the rules to encourage people to take out loans they have no chance of paying back, to start.

 

As for "limited government" that refers to restrictions on defined government powers. You know, like not using the power to tax as an excuse to dictate what must be done with money left untaxed. The benefits of checks and balances on political powers seem obvious to me, but maybe I could be educated by turning your question around:

 

OK, anyone care to take a shot at how you achieve a free, fair and competitive market with MORE regulation and UNLIMITED government?

 

Well changing the rules to encourage people to take out loans is less regulation, not more. So first answer my question before trying to change the subject. My point in case it wasn't obvious is that existing regulations of the banking, insurance and investment institutions were working pretty well until the dismantlement began in the 90s.

 

Now, care to take another shot at it?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Setting lending quotas for "underserved" areas is more regulation, and your question included limited government so talking about it was not a diversion. Avoiding it is.

 

The economic meltdown was put in place by dismantling the regulations designed to prevent such an occurrence. The subsequent measures to keep the economy running were a result of trying to manipulate the economy so it was a bandaid and a diversion from the initial problem.

 

Now I am not in favor of unlimited government so if you want to stay on that tack good luck and happy posting. My point again from the initial statement in this thread is without regulation business will self destruct. As an aside, without regulation we would be breathing asbestos, have lead in our food etc. Clean water, healthy food, safe workplaces are all a direct result of government controls and regulations.

 

So, care to address the initial statement?

Link to post
Share on other sites

We had a great unemployment number this morning, no farm payrolls only decreased by 11k and most were expecting 100k +. Hopefully we are pulling out of this thing.

Also, gold is down 30 bucks right now, the stock market is up and the dollar is up. Most hedge funds have been short dollar and long gold for so long that we could have a nice snap back in the dollar and gold could get crushed. I would love to see gold get below $1000 over the next couple of months. Would be very good for the economy.

Link to post
Share on other sites
It's not rocket science. Watch this, repeat as needed.

H. L. Mencken: “There is always an easy solution to every human problem — neat, plausible and wrong.”

 

Doesn't have any pretty pictures and is a pretty long read but is a very good overall view of where we are and how we got here.

 

I am just not a fan of simplistic statements and solutions.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Setting lending quotas for "underserved" areas is more regulation, and your question included limited government so talking about it was not a diversion. Avoiding it is.

 

The economic meltdown was put in place by dismantling the regulations designed to prevent such an occurrence. The subsequent measures to keep the economy running were a result of trying to manipulate the economy so it was a bandaid and a diversion from the initial problem.

 

Now I am not in favor of unlimited government so if you want to stay on that tack good luck and happy posting. My point again from the initial statement in this thread is without regulation business will self destruct. As an aside, without regulation we would be breathing asbestos, have lead in our food etc. Clean water, healthy food, safe workplaces are all a direct result of government controls and regulations.

 

So, care to address the initial statement?

 

 

Sure, the answer is simple. In many areas we have too much regulation, areas where we have had too little notwithstanding, and I think any idiot should be able to see the advantages of limited government power, so the second part of your question is just silly. But, since you asked and raised the question, can you think of anything that might be beyond the powers of Congress as the Constitution is currently interpreted? Justice Thomas wants to know. Should the power to tax include the power to control untaxed income?

 

While we may differ somewhat on the causes of the recession, each of us has identified one cause of a complex event, making both of us simplistic idiots on that point. The part I colored in blue is where we totally agree. I'm an odd bird: a regulatory libertarian. Businesses AND government are inherently badly behaved. People in groups act like mobs, it's only as individuals that we're mostly ok.

Link to post
Share on other sites
We had a great unemployment number this morning, no farm payrolls only decreased by 11k and most were expecting 100k +. Hopefully we are pulling out of this thing.

Also, gold is down 30 bucks right now, the stock market is up and the dollar is up. Most hedge funds have been short dollar and long gold for so long that we could have a nice snap back in the dollar and gold could get crushed. I would love to see gold get below $1000 over the next couple of months. Would be very good for the economy.

 

+1 - I've thought the dollar commodity play has been overdone for a while - I expect a sharp correction and am short the euro

Link to post
Share on other sites
It's not rocket science. Watch this, repeat as needed.

H. L. Mencken: “There is always an easy solution to every human problem — neat, plausible and wrong.”

 

Doesn't have any pretty pictures and is a pretty long read but is a very good overall view of where we are and how we got here.

 

I am just not a fan of simplistic statements and solutions.

Simple v complex is of no interest. I prefer works v does not work, the stimulus has not worked.

Link to post
Share on other sites
It's not rocket science. Watch this, repeat as needed.

H. L. Mencken: "There is always an easy solution to every human problem — neat, plausible and wrong."

 

Doesn't have any pretty pictures and is a pretty long read but is a very good overall view of where we are and how we got here.

 

I am just not a fan of simplistic statements and solutions.

 

Thinking that moments of irrational exuberance imply that all economic decision making is irrational is simplistic. I can't blame Krugman for taking the opportunity to write a "told you so" essay, and it's worth reading. I don't see that there has been a dispute that financial markets should be regulated and did not find the "deregulation is always bad" mindset persuasive. Even less persuasive is the idea that because markets, especially financial ones, are affected by herd mentality, that somehow means Keynes was right that government spending is the answer to depressions. I note that Krugman left off part of what Keynes had to say: that the spending should be a temporary response and should go away when there is a recovery. That has never happened and won't happen, and it's a big reason why the spending part of Keynsian theory is divorced from political and market realities.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Reality is a funny thing. Especially in financial theory.

 

Ever think how you could ever explain gold to an alien?

 

We spend enormous effort to dig it out from the ground,

carefully remove all impurities, and then stick it right back

underground again. There it sits, carefully guarded,

so no one can do anything with it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Reality is a funny thing. Especially in financial theory.

 

Ever think how you could ever explain gold to an alien?

 

We spend enormous effort to dig it out from the ground,

carefully remove all impurities, and then stick it right back

underground again. There it sits, carefully guarded,

so no one can do anything with it.

 

you think thats tough, try explaining to them why diamonds cost so much! :lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites
It's not rocket science. Watch this, repeat as needed.

 

 

 

 

The economic recession in large part was caused by the inept policy dictated by Govt to Govt Run morgage giant F MAE .

 

tHE POOR HIGH RISK POLICIES dictated by Govt to F MAE lead to the mortgage meltdown and subsequent banking crisis and economic recession .

 

More regulation and Govt dictating policy based on polical agendas isn't the solution --inept politicians are THE PROBLEM .

 

I watched O on CSPAN last evening taking questions after the "jobs summit " --where the Chamber of Commerse that represents mostr every city and town in the nations biz WAS NOT INVITED --or was the NFIB indepentant biz organization -- or were numerous other central job creating organizations .

 

He reiterated a lot of standard observations but again no one in the administration has ever run a biz much less started and built one up ---they are clueless and it shows .

Link to post
Share on other sites
Reality is a funny thing. Especially in financial theory.

 

Ever think how you could ever explain gold to an alien?

 

I think it would be a lot easier to explain to them why it has value than to explain why Federal Reserve Notes have value. Gold has long been valued by our species, before we even discovered that we needed it for electrical connectors on our boats, stereos and computers. Federal Reserve Notes are worth something because we're all under the herd delusion that they're worth something. Why that might be the case is, of course, a secret.

 

People who are cracking wise about the irrational bubbles in stocks and later housing should know that when those kinds of bubbles pop on a whole currency, it's much worse than when they pop in one sector.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Reality is a funny thing. Especially in financial theory.

 

Ever think how you could ever explain gold to an alien?

 

I think it would be a lot easier to explain to them why it has value than to explain why Federal Reserve Notes have value. Gold has long been valued by our species, before we even discovered that we needed it for electrical connectors on our boats, stereos and computers. Federal Reserve Notes are worth something because we're all under the herd delusion that they're worth something. Why that might be the case is, of course, a secret.

 

People who are cracking wise about the irrational bubbles in stocks and later housing should know that when those kinds of bubbles pop on a whole currency, it's much worse than when they pop in one sector.

 

Our system is based on the delusion that gold is worth something,

and the same goes for our currency.

 

And now some are deluding themselves that if they can

remove that delusion, why, that would fix everything....

 

Best not try to explain any of this to aliens. They would vaporize us

just to be sure whateverthehell it is we've got doesn't spread.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Our system is based on the delusion that gold is worth something,

and the same goes for our currency.

 

No, they're not the same, because there is some rational basis for the view that gold is valuable. Gold does have intrinsic value as an elemental metal. In addition to being beautiful and easily worked, it won't corrode and is an excellent conductor.

 

What intrinsic value does a dollar bill have? It's worth something because politicians say that future generations will pay off the debt that created it. I guess it has some intrinsic value to a coke addict without a straw, or to someone desperately in need of a place to write a note, but for the most part it's a worthless piece of paper without the collective delusion that future taxpayers will be able to pay off as many as we can print.

 

A useful, beautiful and somewhat rare elemental metal vs the promises of sleazeballs about what future taxpayers will do. One is valuable because it's valuable, the other because of herd mentality that leads to bubbles that eventually pop.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Our system is based on the delusion that gold is worth something,

and the same goes for our currency.

 

No, they're not the same, because there is some rational basis for the view that gold is valuable. Gold does have intrinsic value as an elemental metal. In addition to being beautiful and easily worked, it won't corrode and is an excellent conductor.

 

What intrinsic value does a dollar bill have? It's worth something because politicians say that future generations will pay off the debt that created it. I guess it has some intrinsic value to a coke addict without a straw, or to someone desperately in need of a place to write a note, but for the most part it's a worthless piece of paper without the collective delusion that future taxpayers will be able to pay off as many as we can print.

 

A useful, beautiful and somewhat rare elemental metal vs the promises of sleazeballs about what future taxpayers will do. One is valuable because it's valuable, the other because of herd mentality that leads to bubbles that eventually pop.

 

A dollar bills are beautiful engraved printings, won't corrode, and you

can heat your house with them (if you have a fireplace). Try that with

gold. You'll freeze to death. You can make things out of them as well.

A pterydactl or even a little boat, if you fold them just right. Can

be rolled into a straw as well....

Link to post
Share on other sites
Hmmm... are you implying that there might be intrinsic value to Reid Stowe's art? Funny guy. :lol:

 

, until it's not...

 

You gotta love Ron, but he is a nut. As things turned out, printing money

was not the reason for the oil spike, speculation was.

 

He's right about how this is all gonna shake out though, but the

horse left the barn some time ago that.

Link to post
Share on other sites
You gotta love Ron, but he is a nut. As things turned out, printing money

was not the reason for the oil spike, speculation was.

 

He's right about how this is all gonna shake out though, but the

horse left the barn some time ago that.

 

The reason(s) are many and debatable, but what Ron is saying is that easy money is a necessary precondition for that kind of speculation, and will breed some speculation or other if it is present. And then that bubble will burst, rinse, lather, spend, repeat.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The interesting thing about gold is that India is that India imports about 3000 tons of it a year. Presumably that is mostly because it goes for jewelry worn at Hindu weddings and such. But what happens if social norms in in India change (I'm not saying they will) and young people just start living together, or there is a movement towards more simple weddings?

Link to post
Share on other sites
You gotta love Ron, but he is a nut. As things turned out, printing money

was not the reason for the oil spike, speculation was.

 

He's right about how this is all gonna shake out though, but the

horse left the barn some time ago that.

 

The reason(s) are many and debatable, but what Ron is saying is that easy money is a necessary precondition for that kind of speculation, and will breed some speculation or other if it is present. And then that bubble will burst, rinse, lather, spend, repeat.

 

Where he is wrong is in thinking that if you deregulate everything

the boom and bust cycle will end. It's the opposite. We suffered

from a lot of it before the Great Depression, got sick and tired of it,

and put in regulations to flattened the sine wave. But we

forgot why we did that and repealed them (Glass Steagle, among

others). The results were quite predictable.

 

Kipling wrote about that....the cycles of his day.

 

The Gods of the Copybook Headings

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

 

 

AS I PASS through my incarnations in every age and race,

I make my proper prostrations to the Gods of the Market Place.

Peering through reverent fingers I watch them flourish and fall,

And the Gods of the Copybook Headings, I notice, outlast them all.

 

We were living in trees when they met us. They showed us each in turn

That Water would certainly wet us, as Fire would certainly burn:

But we found them lacking in Uplift, Vision and Breadth of Mind,

So we left them to teach the Gorillas while we followed the March of Mankind.

 

We moved as the Spirit listed. They never altered their pace,

Being neither cloud nor wind-borne like the Gods of the Market Place,

But they always caught up with our progress, and presently word would come

That a tribe had been wiped off its icefield, or the lights had gone out in Rome.

 

With the Hopes that our World is built on they were utterly out of touch,

They denied that the Moon was Stilton; they denied she was even Dutch;

They denied that Wishes were Horses; they denied that a Pig had Wings;

So we worshipped the Gods of the Market Who promised these beautiful things.

 

When the Cambrian measures were forming, They promised perpetual peace.

They swore, if we gave them our weapons, that the wars of the tribes would cease.

But when we disarmed They sold us and delivered us bound to our foe,

And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: "Stick to the Devil you know."

 

On the first Feminian Sandstones we were promised the Fuller Life

(Which started by loving our neighbour and ended by loving his wife)

Till our women had no more children and the men lost reason and faith,

And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: "The Wages of Sin is Death."

 

In the Carboniferous Epoch we were promised abundance for all,

By robbing selected Peter to pay for collective Paul;

But, though we had plenty of money, there was nothing our money could buy,

And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: "If you don't work you die."

 

Then the Gods of the Market tumbled, and their smooth-tongued wizards withdrew

And the hearts of the meanest were humbled and began to believe it was true

That All is not Gold that Glitters, and Two and Two make Four

And the Gods of the Copybook Headings limped up to explain it once more.

 

As it will be in the future, it was at the birth of Man

There are only four things certain since Social Progress began.

That the Dog returns to his Vomit and the Sow returns to her Mire,

And the burnt Fool's bandaged finger goes wabbling back to the Fire;

 

And that after this is accomplished, and the brave new world begins

When all men are paid for existing and no man must pay for his sins,

As surely as Water will wet us, as surely as Fire will burn,

The Gods of the Copybook Headings with terror and slaughter return!

Link to post
Share on other sites
"but it would have been far more HONEST of the powers that be to attempt and get bi-partisan votes than to lie about stimulating the economy and job promotion in order to have a cash cow of pork dollars to pay off senators to promote government health care under the guise of helping the populace." -Flaps

 

That rabbit may have dug a hole in a mushroom patch.

 

Whatever that means. Sounds like the both of you have been reading too much Dodgson instead of paying attention to the real world. However... looks as thought the "summit" may have enlightened someone.

 

So Obama changes his tune. It's not the government's fault. Today, he said, "While I believe that government has a critical role in creating the conditions for economic growth, ultimately true economic recovery is only going to come from the private sector."-From CNN

 

Oh and again for about the fortieth time it's flaps with a small "f". ;)

 

That article never said Obama was changing his tune. You

seem to think so, but you are going to have to cite

some quote of his where he said something to the contrary.

I don't recall him ever saying that "ulitimately true

economic recovery is only going to come from the public

sector."

 

You mentioned before about how your businesses were delayed

in their overseas startups 4 months because this administration

could not guarentee state and federal tax rates and healthcare

costs for 10 years out. It just doesn't make a lot of sense.

You actually asked the Obama administration to guarantee

what they have no power to control 10 years out? They won't

even be in power that long, and that's just for starters.

 

You have a very, very limited understanding of our system

of government if this is so. I hope for your sake you studied the system

of government in the places you are operating better than

you did this one.

 

cite

Excuse me? What part of enlightened and changing are synonymous? You are putting words in my mouth that were never said. I simply point out that during another info. seminar, that this/our President is using to learn about the real world of business and he seemed to demonstrate a bit of non-anti-business rhetoric and you surmise that I think he's changing his mind? All that I'm looking to see is if he is in fact, truly, a pragmatic leader or, the bullshitter I believe him to be. You guys can't even accept a compliment well. As minute as it may have been.

 

Tell me Mark do you work for yourself or someone else? Do you understand the price of risk in the starting of a new business? Have you any people besides family who's lives you are responsible for? Do you know what it's like to lay awake at night knowing that if you close the plant you'll be hated the rest of your life only because it was the best decision for all involved? Yet you stay open just to make it past the holidays for the benefit of your employees (loyal or otherwise) even though it may cause major problems both emotionally and/or financially for your own family and your future? Do you know what it's like to look an employee in the eye a tell them their fired after you've watched them and their family grow over the past ten years? I DO. Sometimes on a daily basis.

 

You know.... I could care less what you believe personally because there is nothing that I've read to show you have contributed to any of the ideas of fixing this economy outside of occasional liberal party line or negativeness toward the free market system. You have no business acumen that I'm aware of or have demonstrated in your posts. Your posts do however, seem to thrive on finding fault with anyone that you disagree with and changing the subject till it puts you in your perceived advantageous self-aggrandizing position on these threads. You have the temerity to judge me because of some posts on a forum website? Good.. for.. you......

 

I come here for entertainment and can only chuckle when I read your pompous bullshit. I understand our system of government just fine. What I don't understand is the system of giving to those that do not function outside of, or without government assistance, and even then not contributing to society as a whole. I may be from the "so called" party of no, but you my friend are from the party of theft, fabrications and of selfish disregard for those you think are beneath or not as smart as you. You and your liberal brethren are what is truly wrong with this country. Hey but what the heck, you'll figure it out eventually or get kicked out of office and not understand why. Hey, the good news is, I hear Putin's going for President for life. You could always move there and help him out. It may entail some real work, but you'll adjust.

f15

 

 

Fuk. Ing. Ding.

 

(Well done, Son................B) )

Link to post
Share on other sites
"but it would have been far more HONEST of the powers that be to attempt and get bi-partisan votes than to lie about stimulating the economy and job promotion in order to have a cash cow of pork dollars to pay off senators to promote government health care under the guise of helping the populace." -Flaps

 

That rabbit may have dug a hole in a mushroom patch.

 

Whatever that means. Sounds like the both of you have been reading too much Dodgson instead of paying attention to the real world. However... looks as thought the "summit" may have enlightened someone.

 

So Obama changes his tune. It's not the government's fault. Today, he said, "While I believe that government has a critical role in creating the conditions for economic growth, ultimately true economic recovery is only going to come from the private sector."-From CNN

 

Oh and again for about the fortieth time it's flaps with a small "f". ;)

 

That article never said Obama was changing his tune. You

seem to think so, but you are going to have to cite

some quote of his where he said something to the contrary.

I don't recall him ever saying that "ulitimately true

economic recovery is only going to come from the public

sector."

 

You mentioned before about how your businesses were delayed

in their overseas startups 4 months because this administration

could not guarentee state and federal tax rates and healthcare

costs for 10 years out. It just doesn't make a lot of sense.

You actually asked the Obama administration to guarantee

what they have no power to control 10 years out? They won't

even be in power that long, and that's just for starters.

 

You have a very, very limited understanding of our system

of government if this is so. I hope for your sake you studied the system

of government in the places you are operating better than

you did this one.

 

cite

Excuse me? What part of enlightened and changing are synonymous? You are putting words in my mouth that were never said. I simply point out that during another info. seminar, that this/our President is using to learn about the real world of business and he seemed to demonstrate a bit of non-anti-business rhetoric and you surmise that I think he's changing his mind? All that I'm looking to see is if he is in fact, truly, a pragmatic leader or, the bullshitter I believe him to be. You guys can't even accept a compliment well. As minute as it may have been.

 

Tell me Mark do you work for yourself or someone else? Do you understand the price of risk in the starting of a new business? Have you any people besides family who's lives you are responsible for? Do you know what it's like to lay awake at night knowing that if you close the plant you'll be hated the rest of your life only because it was the best decision for all involved? Yet you stay open just to make it past the holidays for the benefit of your employees (loyal or otherwise) even though it may cause major problems both emotionally and/or financially for your own family and your future? Do you know what it's like to look an employee in the eye a tell them their fired after you've watched them and their family grow over the past ten years? I DO. Sometimes on a daily basis.

 

You know.... I could care less what you believe personally because there is nothing that I've read to show you have contributed to any of the ideas of fixing this economy outside of occasional liberal party line or negativeness toward the free market system. You have no business acumen that I'm aware of or have demonstrated in your posts. Your posts do however, seem to thrive on finding fault with anyone that you disagree with and changing the subject till it puts you in your perceived advantageous self-aggrandizing position on these threads. You have the temerity to judge me because of some posts on a forum website? Good.. for.. you......

 

I come here for entertainment and can only chuckle when I read your pompous bullshit. I understand our system of government just fine. What I don't understand is the system of giving to those that do not function outside of, or without government assistance, and even then not contributing to society as a whole. I may be from the "so called" party of no, but you my friend are from the party of theft, fabrications and of selfish disregard for those you think are beneath or not as smart as you. You and your liberal brethren are what is truly wrong with this country. Hey but what the heck, you'll figure it out eventually or get kicked out of office and not understand why. Hey, the good news is, I hear Putin's going for President for life. You could always move there and help him out. It may entail some real work, but you'll adjust.

f15

 

 

Fuk. Ing. Ding.

 

(Well done, Son................B) )

 

The "Obama made me move my "green" business offshore" guy?

 

Kick my ass?

 

Pleeze....

 

I was doin' him a favor, his bullshit was weak and somebody

had to let him know.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Mark, I love you Pal, but American politicians (half of them at least) need to get the fuck out of the way and let the geese that actually lay the eggs of gold go back to doing what this country used to do. Which is incubating ideas, inventing cool shit, schooling and teaching our young kids how to do stuff (besides staring at keyboards), creating businesses, employing people, selling goods here and abroad at reasonable prices, dropping taxes to near zero, rewarding entrupenurialism {sic} and keeping our citizens both employed and allowing them to keep more of their hard earned cash---so that THEY can spend it as THEY see fit, not as pussified Lib polis see fit.

 

If this doesn't happen VERY soon, you can kiss the last of America's ass goodbye as she circles the toilet bowl of irrelevance, despair and failed socialism..............

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you wanted to keep people employed, they should have postponed a year's worth of SSI taxes for both the employees and businesses. Why keep an employee when it's cheaper to lay them off? If you gave companies a 7% incentive to keep the employee, and gave the employee a 7% raise, do you think we'd have double digit unemployment? Yeah, those employees just might sock that money away by reducing debt, but that would allow banks to start lending money again. The Fed is printing money by the truckload, yet the banks are sitting on it. Why? Because they have to increase their reserves for bad loans from unemployed workers. The Dems policies (not just Obama's) have sunk the economy in 10 months.

Link to post
Share on other sites
If you wanted to keep people employed, they should have postponed a year's worth of SSI taxes for both the employees and businesses. Why keep an employee when it's cheaper to lay them off? If you gave companies a 7% incentive to keep the employee, and gave the employee a 7% raise, do you think we'd have double digit unemployment? Yeah, those employees just might sock that money away by reducing debt, but that would allow banks to start lending money again. The Fed is printing money by the truckload, yet the banks are sitting on it. Why? Because they have to increase their reserves for bad loans from unemployed workers. The Dems policies (not just Obama's) have sunk the economy in 10 months.

 

 

Welcome back, Sir..........B)

Link to post
Share on other sites
Where he is wrong is in thinking that if you deregulate everything

the boom and bust cycle will end. It's the opposite. We suffered

from a lot of it before the Great Depression, got sick and tired of it,

and put in regulations to flattened the sine wave. But we

forgot why we did that and repealed them (Glass Steagle, among

others). The results were quite predictable.

 

I see a difference between regulations designed to ensure fair and free competition and those that try to force economic outcomes. The Great Depression was caused by monetary and trade policies that enabled and thus encouraged the speculators. It was prolonged by government efforts to end it, and a couple of the worst and longest lasting crashes ever have happened since we tried to outlaw such events. The results of trying to print and spend our way out of the last crash are always going to be a bigger one down the road, because printing your way to prosperity is a lie that won't hold up in the long run in the market.

Link to post
Share on other sites
If you wanted to keep people employed, they should have postponed a year's worth of SSI taxes for both the employees and businesses.

 

That would work great, except that those taxes pay current beneficiaries and any extra money is loaned to the government, which spends it. Without those taxes, the old people are cut off and the government would have to print even more money.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Do you know what it's like to look an employee in the eye a tell them their fired after you've watched them and their family grow over the past ten years? I DO. Sometimes on a daily basis.

 

There's a few different reasons that you might end up doing that, and none of them reflect especially well on your acumen as a business manager.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Where he is wrong is in thinking that if you deregulate everything

the boom and bust cycle will end. It's the opposite. We suffered

from a lot of it before the Great Depression, got sick and tired of it,

and put in regulations to flattened the sine wave. But we

forgot why we did that and repealed them (Glass Steagle, among

others). The results were quite predictable.

 

I see a difference between regulations designed to ensure fair and free competition and those that try to force economic outcomes. The Great Depression was caused by monetary and trade policies that enabled and thus encouraged the speculators. It was prolonged by government efforts to end it, and a couple of the worst and longest lasting crashes ever have happened since we tried to outlaw such events. The results of trying to print and spend our way out of the last crash are always going to be a bigger one down the road, because printing your way to prosperity is a lie that won't hold up in the long run in the market.

 

The monetary and trade policies that enabled the speculation

were a simple lack of any restraints. Rationalized risk-taking associated

with greed needs no government encouragement. Never has, and never

will.

 

Yet somehow the truly massive spending spree that was WW2 was

followed by 60+ years of prosperity...if the Keynesian's were all

wrong, that should never have happened. A strong case can

be made that it was timidity that prolonged the Depression.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Yet somehow the truly massive spending spree that was WW2 was

followed by 60+ years of prosperity...if the Keynesian's were all

wrong, that should never have happened. A strong case can

be made that it was timidity that prolonged the Depression.

 

You mean the period marked by government spending of 43% of GDP at the end of the war and 11% of GDP a few years later? Yes, I think that era can be instructive...

Link to post
Share on other sites
Yet somehow the truly massive spending spree that was WW2 was

followed by 60+ years of prosperity...if the Keynesian's were all

wrong, that should never have happened. A strong case can

be made that it was timidity that prolonged the Depression.

 

You mean the period marked by government spending of 43% of GDP at the end of the war and 11% of GDP a few years later? Yes, I think that era can be instructive...

 

If you compare the GDP of 1939 and the GDP of 1949, OK.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Yet somehow the truly massive spending spree that was WW2 was

followed by 60+ years of prosperity...if the Keynesian's were all

wrong, that should never have happened. A strong case can

be made that it was timidity that prolonged the Depression.

 

You mean the period marked by government spending of 43% of GDP at the end of the war and 11% of GDP a few years later? Yes, I think that era can be instructive...

 

 

 

If you compare the GDP of 1939 and the GDP of 1949, OK.

 

Well, no. Since you seem to lack your copy of the Economic Report of the President, here are the numbers from mine:

 

1939 - 10.3%

1940 - 9.8%

1941 - 12.0%

1942 - 24.3%

1943 - 43.6%

1944 - 43.6%

1945 - 41.9%

1946 - 24.8%

1947 - 14.8%

1948 - 11.6%

Link to post
Share on other sites
Yet somehow the truly massive spending spree that was WW2 was

followed by 60+ years of prosperity...if the Keynesian's were all

wrong, that should never have happened. A strong case can

be made that it was timidity that prolonged the Depression.

 

You mean the period marked by government spending of 43% of GDP at the end of the war and 11% of GDP a few years later? Yes, I think that era can be instructive...

 

 

 

If you compare the GDP of 1939 and the GDP of 1949, OK.

 

Well, no. Since you seem to lack your copy of the Economic Report of the President, here are the numbers from mine:

 

1939 - 10.3%

1940 - 9.8%

1941 - 12.0%

1942 - 24.3%

1943 - 43.6%

1944 - 43.6%

1945 - 41.9%

1946 - 24.8%

1947 - 14.8%

1948 - 11.6%

 

No Tom, I said the GDP, not the percent of taxation.

 

1939 $92.2

1940 $101.4

1942 $161.9

1943 $198.6

1944 $219.8

1945 $223.0

1946 $222.2

1947 $244.1

1948 $269.1

 

Gotta look at the whole picture...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Speaking of jobs, is the glass half full or half empty?

 

Labor Dept: Available Labor Rate Increases To 10.2%

 

WASHINGTON—In what is being touted by the Labor Department as extremely positive news, the nation's available labor rate has reached double digits for the first time in 26 years, bringing the total number of potentially employable Americans to an impressive 15.7 million.

 

"This is such an exciting time to be an employer in America," said Labor Secretary Hilda Solis, adding that every single day 6,500 more citizens join America's growing possible workforce. "There's such a massive and diverse pool of job-ready Americans to choose from. And each month the number only gets higher."

 

Labor-Department-chart2-45-49-R.jpg

"While our current available labor rate of 10.2 percent isn't quite as robust as it was in 1982 or 1933, we're happy to say that reaching that benchmark is no longer out of the realm of possibility," Solis continued.

 

According to the Department of Labor's report, nearly 200,000 more Americans suddenly became fully hirable in October alone. And November saw unprecedented gains in the number of high-quality auto workers, teachers, lawyers, part-time retailers, and even doctors who could be employed.

 

The report also explained that, because of the booming would-be-employee market, college graduates are having an easier time than ever joining the ranks of those ready and able to receive monetary compensation for work performed at some point.

 

Moreover, it found that, while all Americans were benefiting in some way from the new trend, the nation's African Americans appeared to be in the best position to take advantage of the upward swing in potential employment, with 15.7 percent of all black citizens now situated to have a chance of becoming wage-earners someday.

 

"We are very lucky to be living in a time when so many people can just go out whenever they feel like it and get a job application," Deputy Labor Secretary Seth Harris announced. "Compare that to the late '60s or late '90s, when the available labor rate plummeted to 4 percent and employers didn't have their pick of millions upon millions of Americans dying to put on a hard hat or suit jacket for practically peanuts."

 

Added Harris, "Those were scary times in America."

 

Though Labor sources said the new figures were encouraging, officials were quick to point out that the exact number of those now possessing the capacity to be offered work someday is actually much higher.

 

"Our findings don't take into account all the men and women who are available for work but haven't applied for a job in the last month," Solis said. "That's another 2.4 million Americans out there who can proudly say they wake up every day, get their kids ready for school, and then sit in their living rooms praying for the phone to ring."

 

Solis told reporters she is also encouraged by the vast number of citizens in every state who are willing to take jobs beneath their personal dignity and education level.

 

The Labor Secretary cited the fact that California boasts an impressive available labor force of more than 2 million citizens, while in Oregon, 11.5 percent of the state is ready to fill out a growing stack of empty W-2 forms. In Michigan, more than 15 percent of all citizens said they could start work either today, tomorrow, or right this very second if that's what it takes.

 

"I'll do anything," said Ohio resident Garret Landry, who was last not available for steady employment more than 10 months ago. "Seriously, anything. Cars? I could learn how to fix cars. Manual labor? An office job? Just say the word and I'm there."

 

"I'll transcribe what you're writing for $50," Landry added. "Okay, $25." terminator.gif

 

Thank you the Onion! Well done.

 

Sorry for the hijack. Now back to your regularly scheduled program - "GDP from 1939 to 1948 and the Unforeseen Influence of the Andrews Sisters" (Rum and Coca Cola)

Link to post
Share on other sites
Huh? I was talking about government spending as a percentage of GDP, and posted those numbers and their source. I don't know what you're talking about, nor your source.

 

 

My bad, I guess. I thought you were claiming that Keynesonian economics

couldn't possibly work.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Huh? I was talking about government spending as a percentage of GDP, and posted those numbers and their source. I don't know what you're talking about, nor your source.

 

 

My bad, I guess. I thought you were claiming that Keynesonian economics

couldn't possibly work.

 

No, I'm no absolutist on that issue. Keynes had some good ideas, and cutting government spending after a stimulus boost was one of them. Often forgotten, never practiced since the 1940's, but a good idea all the same.

 

edit to add: Inflating the currency was a bad idea he promoted, and remains a bad idea, which explains why a 1964 dime in mint condition will buy you a gallon of gasoline, but a 1965 one will pretty much buy you a dime.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, if some politician actually went by Keynes we would know if his ideas worked or not. Actually I thought Frum had a good point today when he said the mortgage interest deduction in the US encourages speculation. It would seem to be human nature that what is in retrospect is thought of as a bubble seems normative at the time. I remember when the post-Plaza accord bubble in Japan was explained away with the supposed superiority of Japanese management and the general diligence of the Japanese people.

Link to post
Share on other sites
We currently have infrastructure degradation from coast to coast, and millions of Americans out of work....

Your basic point, absent trailing "conservatives hate people" bullshit, is on target. Infrastructure work needs to be done. We are postively going to do it, sooner or later. We obviously have ample labor available to do it now, without draining (stagnant) private sector construction projects. Unlike the trillion(s) wasted to date, this work would tend to benefit future generations, not just our selfish selves, as infrastructure lasts a long time. Bottom line, now COULD be an ideal time....given one essential (permanent) change.

 

Abolish the bribe induced mandate known as "prevailing wage", such that infrastruture projects reflect true market rather than fabricated political costs. We cannot and obviously never could afford this form of welfare (thus the long string of states bordering on default). The rule is harming the very people the union and political assholes claimed to be protecting, by pricing projects and labor out of the customer's (taxpayers) ability and willingness to pay. It needs to stop, in order for infrastructure projects to ever get anywhere,

 

Checking a few states, "prevailing wage" for unemployed laborers on state/municipal construction projects (total per hour, wage, pension, etc) is posted as the following. (Google "Prevailing Wage" followed by any state name for exact details, covering all trades):

 

$41.42 Southern California. $36.64 New York (NYC). $36.28 Illinois. $28.32 Michigan. $14.00 Florida (varies $9 - $14, depending)

 

In truth, "prevailing wage" of a now long-term unemployed laborer, sitting around watching Oprah on TV because nobody is hiring, is $ZERO.

 

In truth, the above states, possibly excluding Florida, would see THOUSANDS of qualified, experienced construction laborers GLADLY apply and agree to work for HALF "prevailing wage", if not less. Unemployment, while it lasts, "pays" $8 - $12 per hour, so maybe that can serve as a starting reference point for determining true prevailing wage for a general constuction laborer. Whatever the figure, it is closer to half the rate arbitrarily forced on already expensive infrastructure projects.

 

Hopefully a qualified road or bridge engineer can jump in and explain differences in iproject costs for public vs comparable private projects, union or non-union...whichever provides the best value to paying consumers (taxpayers). Whatever the difference, I suspect it would be huge...the difference between widespread taxpayer support and unemployed road crews sitting on their asses watching Oprah, praying for a meaningful job to come along (which, at present rate, it simply won't).

Link to post
Share on other sites

for fucks sake!

you guys whinge about your goverment when when you fuck it up and then ask the government to save you.

if you dont want the government to have your money then dont expect them to do anything!

governments are supposed to nation build, you know? they take the money you make off others to help everyone.

they may make bad decisions but you get a choice every four years!

and as if the otherside is any better!

 

if you want to be free, you have to accept the consquences of your actions!

Link to post
Share on other sites
for fucks sake!

you guys whinge about your goverment when when you fuck it up and then ask the government to save you.

if you dont want the government to have your money then dont expect them to do anything!

governments are supposed to nation build, you know? they take the money you make off others to help everyone.

they may make bad decisions but you get a choice every four years!

and as if the otherside is any better!

 

if you want to be free, you have to accept the consquences of your actions!

 

Not everyone wants the government to save us, only to get out of the way. We can do it better without the supervision and restrictions.

Link to post
Share on other sites
for fucks sake!

you guys whinge about your goverment when when you fuck it up and then ask the government to save you.

if you dont want the government to have your money then dont expect them to do anything!

governments are supposed to nation build, you know? they take the money you make off others to help everyone.

they may make bad decisions but you get a choice every four years!

and as if the otherside is any better!

 

if you want to be free, you have to accept the consquences of your actions!

 

Not everyone wants the government to save us, only to get out of the way. We can do it better without the supervision and restrictions.

 

and how is that working for you so far?

Link to post
Share on other sites
for fucks sake!

you guys whinge about your goverment when when you fuck it up and then ask the government to save you.

if you dont want the government to have your money then dont expect them to do anything!

governments are supposed to nation build, you know? they take the money you make off others to help everyone.

they may make bad decisions but you get a choice every four years!

and as if the otherside is any better!

 

if you want to be free, you have to accept the consquences of your actions!

 

Not everyone wants the government to save us, only to get out of the way. We can do it better without the supervision and restrictions.

 

and how is that working for you so far?

Well according to this, not much at all. He really doesn't get it, does he?

(insert that star trek guy, holding his head in his hand here.)

Link to post
Share on other sites
for fucks sake!

you guys whinge about your goverment when when you fuck it up and then ask the government to save you.

if you dont want the government to have your money then dont expect them to do anything!

governments are supposed to nation build, you know? they take the money you make off others to help everyone.

they may make bad decisions but you get a choice every four years!

and as if the otherside is any better!

 

if you want to be free, you have to accept the consquences of your actions!

 

Not everyone wants the government to save us, only to get out of the way. We can do it better without the supervision and restrictions.

 

and how is that working for you so far?

 

It has worked for centuries, ever since the founding of the USA.

 

Interrupted by decades of confiscatory tax policy and State directed purchasing and bureaucracy.

 

Resuscitated by Reagan.

Link to post
Share on other sites
for fucks sake!

you guys whinge about your goverment when when you fuck it up and then ask the government to save you.

if you dont want the government to have your money then dont expect them to do anything!

governments are supposed to nation build, you know? they take the money you make off others to help everyone.

they may make bad decisions but you get a choice every four years!

and as if the otherside is any better!

 

if you want to be free, you have to accept the consquences of your actions!

 

Not everyone wants the government to save us, only to get out of the way. We can do it better without the supervision and restrictions.

 

and how is that working for you so far?

Well according to this, not much at all. He really doesn't get it, does he?

(insert that star trek guy, holding his head in his hand here.)

 

Obama comes from a fantasy world where governments create jobs.

Link to post
Share on other sites
for fucks sake!

you guys whinge about your goverment when when you fuck it up and then ask the government to save you.

if you dont want the government to have your money then dont expect them to do anything!

governments are supposed to nation build, you know? they take the money you make off others to help everyone.

they may make bad decisions but you get a choice every four years!

and as if the otherside is any better!

 

if you want to be free, you have to accept the consquences of your actions!

 

Not everyone wants the government to save us, only to get out of the way. We can do it better without the supervision and restrictions.

 

and how is that working for you so far?

Well according to this, not much at all. He really doesn't get it, does he?

(insert that star trek guy, holding his head in his hand here.)

 

Obama comes from a fantasy world where governments create jobs.

 

governments can create jobs.

how many people have you guys got overseas now?

Link to post
Share on other sites
for fucks sake!

you guys whinge about your goverment when when you fuck it up and then ask the government to save you.

if you dont want the government to have your money then dont expect them to do anything!

governments are supposed to nation build, you know? they take the money you make off others to help everyone.

they may make bad decisions but you get a choice every four years!

and as if the otherside is any better!

 

if you want to be free, you have to accept the consquences of your actions!

 

Not everyone wants the government to save us, only to get out of the way. We can do it better without the supervision and restrictions.

 

and how is that working for you so far?

Well according to this, not much at all. He really doesn't get it, does he?

(insert that star trek guy, holding his head in his hand here.)

 

Obama comes from a fantasy world where governments create jobs.

 

governments can create jobs.

how many people have you guys got overseas now?

 

Governments create paying bureaucratic positions from taxing the profits and income of people who create businesses and/or have jobs.

 

Liberal test:

1) Nationalize the entire economy.

2) "Create" jobs for people running the newly nationalized industries.

 

Presto! Unemployment disappears - just create a paid position for everybody, and watch the economy expand indefinitely!

Link to post
Share on other sites

If Obama was really clever, he could find a way to present the current unemployment receiver's as "government jobs in transition". Then claim them as jobs saved by the stimulus. His numbers would skyrocket. He might even get re-elected.

Link to post
Share on other sites
for fucks sake!

you guys whinge about your goverment when when you fuck it up and then ask the government to save you.

if you dont want the government to have your money then dont expect them to do anything!

governments are supposed to nation build, you know? they take the money you make off others to help everyone.

they may make bad decisions but you get a choice every four years!

and as if the otherside is any better!

 

if you want to be free, you have to accept the consquences of your actions!

 

Not everyone wants the government to save us, only to get out of the way. We can do it better without the supervision and restrictions.

 

and how is that working for you so far?

Well according to this, not much at all. He really doesn't get it, does he?

(insert that star trek guy, holding his head in his hand here.)

 

Obama comes from a fantasy world where governments create jobs.

 

governments can create jobs.

how many people have you guys got overseas now?

 

Looks like you have a comrade in the White House:

 

"President Barack Obama outlined new multibillion-dollar stimulus and jobs proposals Tuesday, saying the nation must continue to 'spend our way out of this recession' until more Americans are back at work."

 

With that handy-dandy printing press down the street, the WH can spend indefinitely, right?

 

Then full employment will once again be within our grasp!

Link to post
Share on other sites
If Obama was really clever, he could find a way to present the current unemployment receiver's as "government jobs in transition". Then claim them as jobs saved by the stimulus. His numbers would skyrocket. He might even get re-elected.

 

Interesting - when Bush was Prez, each month the media would do stories about those who couldn't find work and just gave up looking, thus falling off the unemployment rolls. So that while the rate was 5%, we were told that it was only because of these millions of people that seemed to be permanently out of work.

Flash forward to last week new claims decline, the rate declines, and Obama's people celebrate, and the media laps it up like puppies at the trough. Anyone bother to ask where the other couple hundred thousand went?

 

What, no tear jerking human interest stories about the woes and travails of the "Obama Unemployed?"

No CNN in depth specials about the state of American small business and how it's job creation momentum has stopped?

CBS "eye on" interviews with business owners and entrenepreneurs?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Obama comes from a fantasy world where governments create jobs.

 

Governments do create and destroy jobs, in a variety of ways. In addition to hiring and firing staff, they contract out work. The most important thing they do is create the conditions necessary for citizens to create jobs. That means roads, police and fire protection, etc, but it also means defining who the government will protect and allow to do business.

 

People who create jobs! Yay! Uh, but what about if they employ children in sweatshops? OK, not those jobs. How about if they pollute the air or water? Um, not those either.

 

We meant nice people, who create good jobs! Yay! Great, let's say they do all that, and their product is defective and dangerous. OK, not those jobs either...

 

See where this is going? Governments can really only allow certain jobs, and those must often come with conditions and rules. Governments must wipe out the rest of the jobs to create the conditions for the good ones.

 

When the era of big government is truly over, we're going back to tribes.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...