• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Who is to blame for the high Unemployment rATE?

Who is to blame for the high Unemployment rate?


  • Total voters
    13
Greed is what makes the world go round. Without greed you have unemployment.
You're so wrong.

Greed is an excessive desire to possess wealth or goods with the intention to keep it for one's self. Greed - like lust and gluttony - is a sin of excess. Greed is inappropriate expectation. However, greed is applied to a very excessive or rapacious desire and pursuit of wealth, status, and power.

Greed - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
No problem. Quantitative easing produces uncertainties with regards to commodities. People can invest in commodities on the idea that inflation will make those prices rise and they can protect themselves from a decreasing value of the dollar. As such, commodity prices are increasing, which translates to a higher cost of production. With a higher cost of production, you can't produce as much as you could otherwise at the same price, hence employment needs to decrease or salaries need to come down.

How much of this effect is offset by the fact that the lower value of the dollar creates a greater demand for exports?
 
Bush and the Republicans
Obama and the Democrats

Lax financial regulations and ill-advised mortgage subsidies, which were supported by Democrats and Republicans alike and which STILL haven't been corrected, were responsible for the 2008 financial crisis which got us into this mess in the first place. So both of these two poll options are correct.


Yes. The biggest form of uncertainty in the global economy is what is going to happen with the mess in Europe, thanks to a unified currency that prohibits countries from pursuing the most appropriate monetary policy for THEIR economy.

High Gas Prices

High OIL prices really...but yes, they are a major drag on economic growth.

The Earthquake in Japan

Ehh, not really. It certainly wasn't good for Japan, but its impact on the unemployment rate in this country is negligible.
 
Last edited:
Lax financial regulations and ill-advised mortgage subsidies, which were supported by Democrats and Republicans alike and which STILL haven't been corrected, were responsible for the 2008 financial crisis which got us into this mess in the first place. So both of these two poll options are correct.



Yes. The biggest form of uncertainty in the global economy is what is going to happen with the mess in Europe, thanks to a unified currency that prohibits countries from pursuing the most appropriate monetary policy for THEIR economy.



High OIL prices really...but yes, they are a major drag on economic growth.



Ehh, not really. It certainly wasn't good for Japan, but its impact on the unemployment rate in this country is negligible.

Negligible? Maybe in Washington DC but in the parts of America that require supplies from Japan, all the way down to GM, Toyota, Honda, Ford, computer companies, etc it has had a massive impact.
 
I'd say it depends on how you define blame. Defining blame depends on your definition of what people and groups should and should not do. For example a business sees an opportunity in China so it moves it factory out of the US, the business makes more money as a result and American workers are laid off. So whos to blame?

-The US workers for taking jobs in a field which other individuals offered at much lower wages? But then again perhaps they didn't have much choice, I'm sure some wouldn't be there if they had other means.
-The Company for closing down its American factory? But then again they are just trying to stay competitive, and a business' purpose is to make money is it really justifiable they should go down with the ship?
-The Chinese government for being so business friendly in many ways? They are just trying to attract more business and industry it increases their national capability and provides jobs for their people, is that wrong?
-The Chinese workers themselves for working at such low rates? Well in comparison to other jobs like farming, "sweat shop" jobs can provide a massive increase in wages for their family, and American was similar in 20s.
-The US government for not being as business friendly with regulations? We elected those people and many of those regulations are popular, those regs are why we have clean drinking water for example.

To me all these are examples of just how the world works, none are morally wrong in any way and I wouldn't criticize any of these groups for doing what they do, yet in some ways they all are collectively responsible for the current high unemployment in the US. The one thing I cannot stand, but I have to admit is a drop in the bucket when compared to geopolitical trends like "The Rise of China" is the golden parachute executives. Those individuals who took massive bonuses and pay increases as their company went to hell, sometimes causing the company to go to hell just so they could rob it blind. Those individuals certainly did something which both caused high employment and violates both morality and good economics. Its one thing to be paid hundreds of millions of dollars because you are that damn good at your job, that's economics. Its quite another to be placed into that position of power and then destroy your company and people's lives for personal profit, that's criminal. Why is it criminal? The easiest reason is because its a violation of contract with the company's investor, no investor signs up for a company they know is going down in flame deliberately. I don't know law that well but that strikes me as an easy example.
 
After Obama's speech trying to explain the 9.2% Unemployment rate, let's see who you think is to blame for it.

Everyone shares some responsibility.

Corporations: downsizing, outsourcing, generally employing less in number and requiring more per workload.
Government: enabling outsourcing, making certain decisions that encourage/discourage hiring (etc)
Individuals: insistent on living in an area with less options or a lengthier commute, unwilling to relocate to find employment, not saving money to carry through hard times or put towards relocation, poor education choices or busines choices (like my brother in law who is still in sales - income depends on sales success), and being satisfied being unemployed (for some) - letting their mood affect their efforts to find work.
Towns: being ok on relying on one main means of employment for income - if the company goes broke the entire town suffers.

and so on.
 
Republican's first. Their ideas of deregulation caused the housing bubble. The Dems were willing compatriots though. Bush second because of his economic and political policies that not only allowed but encouraged the housing bubble. All this resulted in the crash and the explosion in unemployment.

And ultimately... Reagan and Reaganomics... thinking that having an endless deficit does not matter, and actually thinking that trickle down economics works.
 
Republican's first. Their ideas of deregulation caused the housing bubble. The Dems were willing compatriots though. Bush second because of his economic and political policies that not only allowed but encouraged the housing bubble. All this resulted in the crash and the explosion in unemployment.

And ultimately... Reagan and Reaganomics... thinking that having an endless deficit does not matter, and actually thinking that trickle down economics works.

So, naturally, the Democratic plan of 'well just support those who don't support theirselves' fixes everything. HAH!

Look - government's limited no matter WHO is in charge or WHO calls the shots . . . isn't it acopout to blame a past decision when any congress that's met AFTER that can reverse those previously made decisions if they so choose?

And you're looking at the president's political affiliation as a compass - it's not so much the presidnet's, it's the congress and their party makeup - Bush was with a Republican Congress but also a Democratic Congress. :shrug:
 
Republican's first. Their ideas of deregulation caused the housing bubble.



The Dems were willing compatriots though. Bush second because of his economic and political policies that not only allowed but encouraged the housing bubble. All this resulted in the crash and the explosion in unemployment.

Say it.....Tax Cuts caused the Recession....

And ultimately... Reagan and Reaganomics... thinking that having an endless deficit does not matter, and actually thinking that trickle down economics works.

.....not as well as Trickle-Up Poverty....as Obama has demonstrated.
.
.
.
 
lazy people unwilling to work for a living.

I state this because when ever unemployement insurance is discussed on this form, some people state the jobs are there if they just looked for them

This may be true in 0.1 of 1% of the cases.
I'd say any and all of the 7 sins(ignorance, greed, sloth,hatred, etc)
ALL of us must break out that mirror on the wall and do some serious soul-searching.
From the man pushing the broom to the one owning it - have I done my best ??
And we may now have many who are resigned to the fact that the Chinese and Koreans are working us under the table...This may be true today. buts lets learn from them and out-work them tomorrow.
Again - ALL of us, from the CEO to the OEC(whatever that is)...
From the President over 300 million to the president over 3 ...
 
OMG, you actually believe this ?
Look around and see what greed really does.
Than compare that to love.


Greed puts food on our table and clothes on our back . . . love satisfies a purely emotional need and satisfies compulsion.

Honetsl y- greed is more fitting in that phrase than love is.
 
those of you who are upset with greed, probably live as bottom feeders trying not to have more than anyone else while traveling by public trans or biking to the unimployment office for the weekly handout.
 
Republican's first. Their ideas of deregulation caused the housing bubble. The Dems were willing compatriots though. Bush second because of his economic and political policies that not only allowed but encouraged the housing bubble. All this resulted in the crash and the explosion in unemployment.

And ultimately... Reagan and Reaganomics... thinking that having an endless deficit does not matter, and actually thinking that trickle down economics works.
You can't blame deregulation on the Republicans. That was a Clinton idea.
 
You can't blame deregulation on the Republicans. That was a Clinton idea.

It was a bit of both...the GOP of the Clinton era certainly didn't do much objecting to it. But I agree with your implication that deregulation was a bad idea, and we need more stringent rules in place to govern our financial system.
 
It was a bit of both...the GOP of the Clinton era certainly didn't do much objecting to it. But I agree with your implication that deregulation was a bad idea, and we need more stringent rules in place to govern our financial system.

Barney Frank and the Dems crammed it down the Republican's throats. The Republicans were the ones who tried to warn them what was going to happen.
 
Greed caused the financial collapse. Ergo, it caused a lot of the unemployment we're seeing today. The numbers wouldn't be nearly as high if Wall Street hadn't been so greedy. And don't even tell me greed didn't cause the collapse, that'd be a lie, plain and simple.

How would we advance without it? You think that people provide economic services just out of the goodness of their heart?
 
How much of this effect is offset by the fact that the lower value of the dollar creates a greater demand for exports?

Obviously not much since unemployment is still very high.
 
It was a bit of both...the GOP of the Clinton era certainly didn't do much objecting to it. But I agree with your implication that deregulation was a bad idea, and we need more stringent rules in place to govern our financial system.

The problem is not deregulation. Most of the bad policies were self-eliminating. Rather, the problem stems from easy credit and not allowing companies that partake in these bad practices to fail. Without creative destruction, how do we gain efficiency?
 
You can't blame deregulation on the Republicans. That was a Clinton idea.

Clinton deregulated the mortgage industry and when Bush tried to re-regulate it, it was the Democrats who wouldn't allow it. Deregulation led directly to the housing bubble, which sparked the economic crash.
 
Clinton deregulated the mortgage industry and when Bush tried to re-regulate it, it was the Democrats who wouldn't allow it. Deregulation led directly to the housing bubble, which sparked the economic crash.

And tell me, which party was it that bailed out the companies that inevitably crashed because of the bad practices that they engaged in once those regulations were loosened?

You can't have deregulation if you're going to subsidize bad behavior.
 
Barney Frank and the Dems crammed it down the Republican's throats. The Republicans were the ones who tried to warn them what was going to happen.

Glad we agree that deregulating the financial system was a terrible idea, and should be reversed.
 
The problem is not deregulation. Most of the bad policies were self-eliminating.

No they aren't. The financial sector will continue to make the same mistakes over and over again if no one reins them in, each time convincing themselves that this time is different. I mean, we're already in another tech bubble despite the fact that we just had one a decade ago.

Rather, the problem stems from easy credit and not allowing companies that partake in these bad practices to fail. Without creative destruction, how do we gain efficiency?

That works for widget manufacturers, not so much for financial companies. The main point of "creative destruction" is to allow for innovative companies to replace less innovative companies...but innovation is usually not something desirable in finance. Especially when it involves extraordinarily complex transactions that are several steps removed from any underlying asset.
 
No they aren't. The financial sector will continue to make the same mistakes over and over again if no one reins them in, each time convincing themselves that this time is different. I mean, we're already in another tech bubble despite the fact that we just had one a decade ago.

Those companies were going down because of those mistakes. And voila, they are saved so they can continue those practices.

That works for widget manufacturers, not so much for financial companies. The main point of "creative destruction" is to allow for innovative companies to replace less innovative companies...but innovation is usually not something desirable in finance. Especially when it involves extraordinarily complex transactions that are several steps removed from any underlying asset.

It's not about innovation in this case as much as it is about the elimination of bad business practices.
 
And tell me, which party was it that bailed out the companies that inevitably crashed because of the bad practices that they engaged in once those regulations were loosened?

You can't have deregulation if you're going to subsidize bad behavior.

The whole point of regulation in the first place is to control the bad behavior that's likely to occur. If we'd maintained regulation, then the banking industry would not have been able to get involved in mortgages, would not have been stuck with tons of bad paper and bailouts would never have been necessary. Now keep in mind, I entirely disagree with the bailouts, I think every one of those companies should have been allowed to fail based on their own stupidity, but once it stops being American Home Mortgages and starts being Bank of America that's facing failure, it becomes a different ball game. There are certainly banks that refused to get involved in the sub-prime mortgage game, but many, many just bought paper thinking it would all magically be good and made some really horrible decisions. They should have been allowed to die, but if that happened, there goes American consumer confidence, there would have been riots in the streets. It was really a no-win situation, there were no good solutions, except not to deregulate in the first place.
 
Back
Top Bottom