Page 14 of 14 FirstFirst ... 4121314
Results 131 to 133 of 133

Thread: Report: Economists Say Recession Over, Want Bernanke to Stay

  1. #131
    Traditionalist
    phattonez's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Last Seen
    12-05-17 @ 03:45 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    20,072

    Re: Report: Economists Say Recession Over, Want Bernanke to Stay

    Quote Originally Posted by stekim View Post
    How?
    Where does capital come from?

    I think you are even losing yourself now.
    No, think about it. Government invested in some companies. We could have used the money to invest in companies, to save, or to spend. We would have been more satisfied using the money however we wanted to.

    The goal of an economy is to maximize satisfaction. When we lose sight of that goal we pursue wrongheaded measures.

    Who shall ascend the hill of the Lord? And who shall stand in his holy place? He who has clean hands and a pure heart, who does not lift up his soul to what is false, and does not swear deceitfully. Psalm 24
    "True law is right reason in agreement with nature . . . Whoever is disobedient is fleeing from himself and denying his human nature [and] will suffer the worst penalties . . ." - Cicero

  2. #132
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-29-10 @ 12:03 AM
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    3,379

    Re: Report: Economists Say Recession Over, Want Bernanke to Stay

    Quote Originally Posted by donsutherland1 View Post
    Justone,

    I believe that the stimulus has had a net positive effect, albeit a small one.
    It helped soften the dramatic drop in aggregate demand.
    Don,

    Here you go again. You go with what you call dramatic ‘’apocalyptic rhetoric’’. You should know by this time that it has no bearing on me, because one man’s drama can be another man’s comedy. There was a prediction of a few men that aggregate demand was going to drop dramatically. I don’t understand ‘’dramatic’’, I need numbers and graphs.

    Prediction: There would be a dramatic increase in foreclosures if we don’t spend billons.

    The result of spending: the dramatic unprecedented increase in foreclosures.

    Prediction: GM and Chrysler can avoid bankruptcy. The whole comedy follows.
    The result of the spending is well known for anyone who is not an Obama supporter and thus is not blind.

    Prediction: Jump start economy with stimulus.
    The result: do you understand what does jump start mean? Hint, - it does not mean what we have in the result of spending.

    The list goes on.

    In the result we could have things as bad as they are, we even could have, rephrasing you, a ‘’net’’ negative ‘’effect, albeit a small one’’, but we would not have the unprecedented spending aka deficit and we wouldn’t have the government “’nationalizing’’ the private sector, and we would not have the too big to fail developing their monopolizing illegal structures even further. (I have to remind to you that I proved to you that “’nationalizing’’ was a bogus expression for fascism aka socialism aka state capitalism. )

    Yet, in spite of the obvious and unprecedented damage to economy the population is supporting the damage or is indifferent to it, or like you defends it as the best choice. The best choice, as I have been proving appealing to facts of reality, was not to have Obama, Mccain and Clinton as a choice, not to choose Obama, and now, right now, impeach Obama for the damages inflicted on the US.




    Quote Originally Posted by donsutherland1 View Post
    That the economy will recover at some point does not give any Administration license to pursue ideological agendas that could be harmful to long-run growth. That Administrations have often followed the politically expedient course e.g., in adopting policy changes that increase the nation's long-term fiscal imbalances, in effect allow today's generation to benefit at the expense of tomorrow's, has to do with political judgments not economic ones.
    The reality is described in my previous post. The people gave the license to Obama, the majority supported him, the majority and all media approved his economic plan, you did, too, when I said it was wrong, the majority as it can be seen on DP still supports him. Don, political judgments were destined to override economic ones in this administration.


    The best choice, as I have been proving appealing to facts of reality, is for economists not to think that they are so smart that they cannot be used and abused, and not to participate in the abuse. As to the practice, the Obama team, the one you vouched to be the best, has to go along with Obama in the garbage. Don, you lost. You should reread and rewrite the books.


    Quote Originally Posted by donsutherland1 View Post
    I believe adoption of Medicare Part D, which added another $30 trillion to the nation's perpetual horizon unfunded liabilities, was a terrible policy move. Adopting health care legislation that would not be budget neutral and would fail to address the imbalance associated with health expenditures rising at a multiple of economic growth would be another huge error. At this time, I don't believe any of the emerging health care proposals satisfies those criteria.

    I don't believe any of the emerging health care proposals satisfies any criteria.

    Medicare Part D added another $30 trillion, - you have seen nothing yet.

    I already told you that nobody has ever defined real problems of the healthScare. It IS another error and its huge error. The common sense tells that Obama has to be stopped. The common sense tells that Obama will not be stopped.

  3. #133
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-29-10 @ 12:03 AM
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    3,379

    Re: Report: Economists Say Recession Over, Want Bernanke to Stay

    Quote Originally Posted by donsutherland1 View Post
    I'm only noting that behavior, which is reasonable in times of great risk, can have an overall drag on the economy. The principle of the Paradox of Thrift, what is good for the individual (saving), may not be good for the economy (lack of consumption) in the short-term.

    The seeds of the ongoing recession were planted by households, the private sector, and government. No single sector is to blame.

    You did not let the private sector to have a chance to take responsibilty and suffer the consquinces.

    I am afraid you are biased, economy is for the customer, but not the customer for economy, the customer and the producer make economy, but not the opposite.
    When you said that the private sector (households) is hoarding cash out of fear, I reminded you that the fear was incited by the gov-nt.
    I already made a post to you where I outlined how the gov-nt, including F. Mac an F.Mae, lured households to the mentality that the households could afford debt vs. affording goods and services, it was the mentality incited on the households by the gov-nt, like later it was the fear incited on the households by the gov-nt. Along with the incitement, the gov-nt undertook a whole number of mad actions. On other hand indeed the households do not deserve any sympathy, in the end of all the households elected Obama and still want to be fooled. I will not remind you that you still defend Obama, though you say that indeed he makes huge errors one after another.

    Right now in the cash for clunkers program consumers sign debts on new cars. They have been assured by the gov-nt that they can afford the debts, - are we all to pay for them again?



    Quote Originally Posted by donsutherland1 View Post
    With respect to government policy, real risks persist. I've noted in the past and will do so again, that the only bailouts that were justified were those associated with systemic risk to prevent the collapse of the nation's financial system.
    It was a drama, an apocalyptic prediction - the collapse of the nation's financial system. No, Don, it is true that due to the lack of education I cannot even draw the financial system, but I cannot imagine a collapse to happen or be bad, provided the gov-nt introduces some just regulations leveling the field for the players. Again, look at the result, the unprecedented number of banks fails after the announcement and them implementation of the bailout. Could it a similar number without bailout? I hardly imagine it could be such a big number. But the worst is that too big to fail have been bailed out and they are taking over the smaller ones which did not get bailout. http://www.debatepolitics.com/breaki...sold-bb-t.html The nation's financial system has collapsed as the matter of the fact. And as the only expected result from the collapse the new system is growing out of the collapsed one, this time it is imposed by the gov-nt; and it is not American, - you can call it state capitalism, I call it national socialism, other call it fascism. I spoke to an old man who started his business over 50 years ago, - he says he has not seen anything like this year. The thing Don is that I have all reason to conclude that it wouldn’t be worse without bailouts.


    Quote Originally Posted by donsutherland1 View Post
    The auto companies should not have been bailed out and homeowners should not be bailed out. The bailed out financial institutions should have been resolved or be in the process of being resolved. Instead, funds have been provided, but very little resolution has been done e.g., AIG still maintains substantial derivatives positions that should have been unwound by now with the profitable sectors of the company sold off to stronger firms; the GSEs have not been cleansed of their toxic assets, broken into smaller pieces, and reprivatized, etc. As a result, there is the risk that U.S. timidity on resolving the bailed out financial institutions could mark a repetition of some of the errors that had been made in Japan's early efforts to confront the problems associated with the collapse of its twin stock market and real estate bubbles.

    It is all true, Don, it is all true, it is clear and simple and I was pointing to that BEFORE it was done. You and I have a full agreement that you are all correct. Then, even if you were correct about the apocalyptic predictions, the stimulus IS a total failure. It will not result a repetition of some of the errors that had been made in Japan's early efforts, it will not result in repetition of China’s success, because we are not Japan and we are not China,- it will result in us turning into Japanese-Chinese America. We will be no America anymore.



    Quote Originally Posted by donsutherland1 View Post
    Furthermore, once the economy is on a sustainable growth path, the U.S. will need to undertake a credible fiscal consolidation program to eliminate its budget deficits and reduce its debt……..
    Don, again the thing is that these requirements or plans about things that will need to be done should had to be drawn before the stimulus and had to be put into practice almost along with the stimulus, like the stimulus had to be accompanied by dissolving the zombie institution. (That is if to except that you are right and I am wrong that without stimulus it couldn’t be worse)


    Quote Originally Posted by donsutherland1 View Post
    Creating a new health care program(s) that is not budget-neutral and does not
    address the expenditures imbalance, will only undermine any credible fiscal consolidation effort.
    Let’s go on the health reform debate and talk about the reform, as the debate is clogged with Obama supporter’s who are so sure that there is such a thing as a free lunch.



    The private sector is and, and I believe, needs to remain the largest contributor to economic growth, job creation, and rising living standards. No other growth model can compare in terms of outcomes.


    Quote Originally Posted by donsutherland1 View Post
    Profit is the key incentive for private enterprise and federal policy should not seek to dramatically reduce long-term economic profits. Otherwise, such policies would inflict material damage on the economy and the nation's ability to continue to improve its standard of living.
    The idea of the private sector consists in the simple notion that it is private. When the gov-nt jumps into it with a wagon of money and changes the rules of the game and starts “competing’’ all for the sake of grabbing and holding onto power, when it does what Obama does, one hardly can say that the sector has any reasonable privacy.

Page 14 of 14 FirstFirst ... 4121314

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •