Economics for liberals. What Obama should have done.

[Ford]

The stupid snide "Democrat House" thing is so juvenile.

Snide? Absolutely. Stupid? If the results are any indication, perhaps not.

Whatever else you might say about 'ole Turd Blossom, he was good at manipulating language to his purposes.

After a decade or so of hammering away he (and others like him) have managed to make it politically difficult for a liberal Democrat to come out and say "I am a liberal Democrat." They've turned both "liberal" and "Democrat" into perjorative terms, and not a soul has fought back against it.


By the same token, "conservative" has to many people become synonymous with words like patriotic, American, and they've managed to convince a whole lot of people that the revolutionaries who founded the country were in fact conservative if not outright Republican.


Of course they want us to dismiss it as a juvenile semantic exercise, because when you dismiss it out of hand, they no longer need to fight.

 

[boneyard bill]

The stupid snide "Democrat House" thing is so juvenile.

Snide? Absolutely. Stupid? If the results are any indication, perhaps not.

Whatever else you might say about 'ole Turd Blossom, he was good at manipulating language to his purposes.

After a decade or so of hammering away he (and others like him) have managed to make it politically difficult for a liberal Democrat to come out and say "I am a liberal Democrat." They've turned both "liberal" and "Democrat" into perjorative terms, and not a soul has fought back against it.


By the same token, "conservative" has to many people become synonymous with words like patriotic, American, and they've managed to convince a whole lot of people that the revolutionaries who founded the country were in fact conservative if not outright Republican.


Of course they want us to dismiss it as a juvenile semantic exercise, because when you dismiss it out of hand, they no longer need to fight.

"Democratic" and "Democrat" are synonymous terms. The use of Democrat as name of the party by Republicans long precedes Karl Rove, the argument being that the Republican party is also democratic. Frankly, I've never much bought into the idea. The advantage of "Democrat" is that I have two fewer letters to type. I absolutely agree that the dispute is juvenile.

"Liberal" as a pejorative also precedes Karl Rove. I'm not sure how it came about. Democrats still bragged about being liberal in the seventies. I would guess that it might have been Carter who brought the term into disrepute although Carter rarely used the term. Way back in the forties, Nixon described himself as a "practical liberal," but now Democrats don't use it to describe themselves and even many liberals who are not politicians seem to have turned to the word "progressive."

 

[arkirk]

Quite a stretch in your thinking I'd say. Reagan had to work with a Democrat House for his entire administration and with a Democrat Senate for the last two years. What "prisoners" did he not take? He got what he wanted by rallying the public behind his programs.

Your history is confused. The "Democrat House" was an invention of Rove, long after Reagan was dead.
Reagan had a Democratic House and Democratic Senate to deal with. The stupid snide "Democrat House" thing is so juvenile.

I frankly think Obama had no idea of how racist people high in our government are. He also seems to hue to the line that wealth is wisdom and definitely also that society is a danger to the best part of our society...corporate america. His image, traveling to India with the head of GE trying to sell them nuclear power plants does not inspire confidence. You might say congress has been done about as much good for us as HIS ADMINISTRATION. He appears to already have made post presidency alliances with various sectors of the corporate world. He seems disconnected from the people and the environment and is frankly afraid of the chamber of commerce. With such a creature as him running our affairs, we don't really have much to look forward to. With creatures like McConnel and Boener running congress, we will have XL AND THE CLIMATE EFFECTS THAT GO WITH IT...AND PLENTY OF SUB-MINIMUM WAGE JOBS. Perhaps what made it clear to me where Obama's head was, is his support of the notion for forcing our will on the world by military force and doing it by remote control. He has become quite remote himself.

I think he should have gone the Krugman route in his first term, when he had a congress to help him. Today, he is like a deer in the headlights...and the outright racism of men like McConnel will queer any effort he might make. Even his health plan is a terrible mish mash of giveaways to the insurance companies and pharma. He had to be a knowing advocate. Instead he just leaned by and let ememies of the people load extra cost onto the program. Today, he scrambles to defend this gift to corporate America. Even Lyndon Johnson did better than him...of course he had Bill Moyers writing his speeches for him and he used the bully pulpit well till Vietnam took him down...which it should have done by the way.

 

[untermensche]

This is what happens to most presidents.

Their power dwindles in their last years in office.

Obama is no man of vision.

He took the nation nowhere because he had no vision of a better place to go.

 

[boneyard bill]

Your history is confused. The "Democrat House" was an invention of Rove, long after Reagan was dead.
Reagan had a Democratic House and Democratic Senate to deal with. The stupid snide "Democrat House" thing is so juvenile.

I frankly think Obama had no idea of how racist people high in our government are. He also seems to hue to the line that wealth is wisdom and definitely also that society is a danger to the best part of our society...corporate america. His image, traveling to India with the head of GE trying to sell them nuclear power plants does not inspire confidence. You might say congress has been done about as much good for us as HIS ADMINISTRATION. He appears to already have made post presidency alliances with various sectors of the corporate world. He seems disconnected from the people and the environment and is frankly afraid of the chamber of commerce. With such a creature as him running our affairs, we don't really have much to look forward to. With creatures like McConnel and Boener running congress, we will have XL AND THE CLIMATE EFFECTS THAT GO WITH IT...AND PLENTY OF SUB-MINIMUM WAGE JOBS. Perhaps what made it clear to me where Obama's head was, is his support of the notion for forcing our will on the world by military force and doing it by remote control. He has become quite remote himself.

I think he should have gone the Krugman route in his first term, when he had a congress to help him. Today, he is like a deer in the headlights...and the outright racism of men like McConnel will queer any effort he might make. Even his health plan is a terrible mish mash of giveaways to the insurance companies and pharma. He had to be a knowing advocate. Instead he just leaned by and let ememies of the people load extra cost onto the program. Today, he scrambles to defend this gift to corporate America. Even Lyndon Johnson did better than him...of course he had Bill Moyers writing his speeches for him and he used the bully pulpit well till Vietnam took him down...which it should have done by the way.

"Racist" Senator McConnell is married to an Asian woman. Congress won't do anything worse than the previous one did. It might do better, but I'm not holding my breath waiting for it. Obama didn't keep any of his promises because he couldn't have (except for withdrawing from Iraq). So maybe the fault lies with those who voted for his unrealistic campaign platform.

 

[Roller]

I see that the title for that interview is "U.S. Needs to Invest in Infrastructure Projects With Positive Rates of Return". Isn't that what Krugman has been saying all along?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

When did Krugman specify a positive rate of return? I don't think he did. The lead-time for infrastructure with a likely positive rate of return would probably be too high for Krugman. I suspect that's a big problem with Brock's idea as well. He more or less glosses over that problem. But note that Brock also wants de-regulation and pointed out that Obama has promulgated 15,000 new regulations through executive orders. I haven't heard Krugman say anything positive about de-regulation.

Definitely investments in infrastructure. Krugman doesn't say much about deregulation because he is of opinion (he cited surveys of businesses) that regulations are not a big problem. Demand is.

Also, I'm not sure where 15000 new regulations through executive orders come. That would be about 80-90 regulations per each executive order? Sounds quite a bit.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[boneyard bill]

When did Krugman specify a positive rate of return? I don't think he did. The lead-time for infrastructure with a likely positive rate of return would probably be too high for Krugman. I suspect that's a big problem with Brock's idea as well. He more or less glosses over that problem. But note that Brock also wants de-regulation and pointed out that Obama has promulgated 15,000 new regulations through executive orders. I haven't heard Krugman say anything positive about de-regulation.

Definitely investments in infrastructure. Krugman doesn't say much about deregulation because he is of opinion (he cited surveys of businesses) that regulations are not a big problem. Demand is.

Also, I'm not sure where 15000 new regulations through executive orders come. That would be about 80-90 regulations per each executive order? Sounds quite a bit.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

We should build infrastructure when we need infrastructure and can afford to pay for it. It simply isn't practical to use it as a counter-cyclical stimulus.

From what I understand of Krugman's views, he would regard paying people to dig holes and filling them up again as a stimulus. He is not concerned about a positive return or about lead times.

 

[laughing dog]

We should build infrastructure when we need infrastructure and can afford to pay for it. It simply isn't practical to use it as a counter-cyclical stimulus.

Since our infrastructure has been in dire need for repair for years, it makes perfect sense to repair it during a downturn.

 

[ksen]

and when interest rates are almost zero

 

[Nice Squirrel]

We should build infrastructure when we need infrastructure and can afford to pay for it. It simply isn't practical to use it as a counter-cyclical stimulus.

Yes, it isn't wise to keep people employed during a recession. We need to deepen it by canceling contracts and laying people off. Only wild boom and bust cycles are way is needed.

 

[boneyard bill]

We should build infrastructure when we need infrastructure and can afford to pay for it. It simply isn't practical to use it as a counter-cyclical stimulus.

Since our infrastructure has been in dire need for repair for years, it makes perfect sense to repair it during a downturn.

We've already discussed that. The lead time for large infrastructure projects is so great that you can't be assured that the actual construction, where most of the jobs are created, will actually occur during the downturn.

And there's that other little qualifier that I mentioned which is the ability to pay for it. Do you want to raise taxes to pay for it? Oops, there goes the stimulus - taxed into oblivion.

 

[boneyard bill]

We should build infrastructure when we need infrastructure and can afford to pay for it. It simply isn't practical to use it as a counter-cyclical stimulus.

Yes, it isn't wise to keep people employed during a recession. We need to deepen it by canceling contracts and laying people off. Only wild boom and bust cycles are way is needed.

How are you going to pay for those people to be employed? If you raise taxes, you depress the very economy you are trying to stimulate. If you borrow the money, there goes the low interest rates. You can create the money (a very bad idea), but you don't need infrastructure projects to do that.

 

[Roller]

How are you going to pay for those people to be employed? If you raise taxes, you depress the very economy you are trying to stimulate. If you borrow the money, there goes the low interest rates. You can create the money (a very bad idea), but you don't need infrastructure projects to do that.

Govt can borrow at basically negative rates at the moment. Well, actually for last 4 years or so. You know, last 4 years that you guys have been promising inflation boom.

And I thought that quantitive easing being the reason for low rates have been put to death when Pimco bid on increase in rates once there was a break in QE few years ago. Pimco lost a lot of money because rates stayed low. Also, rates are low in western countries that had no QE. Apparently there is something about being able to borrow in your own currency...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Valjean]

Since our infrastructure has been in dire need for repair for years, it makes perfect sense to repair it during a downturn.

We've already discussed that. The lead time for large infrastructure projects is so great that you can't be assured that the actual construction, where most of the jobs are created, will actually occur during the downturn.

So how did Roosevelt pull it off, and in the midst of a major depression?

 

[laughing dog]

Since our infrastructure has been in dire need for repair for years, it makes perfect sense to repair it during a downturn.

We've already discussed that. The lead time for large infrastructure projects is so great that you can't be assured that the actual construction, where most of the jobs are created, will actually occur during the downturn.

That is simply untrue. The lead time to repair roads isn't long. And there is nothing to prevent the planning to occur and then use those plans when needed. Moreover, if the infrastructure needs the repair, then it ought to occur even when the economy is not in a slump.

And there's that other little qualifier that I mentioned which is the ability to pay for it. Do you want to raise taxes to pay for it? Oops, there goes the stimulus - taxed into oblivion.

Nope. It's called borrowing. After all, why should citizens today entirely fund a project with positive net benefits over the next 10 to 40 years?

 

[boneyard bill]

How are you going to pay for those people to be employed? If you raise taxes, you depress the very economy you are trying to stimulate. If you borrow the money, there goes the low interest rates. You can create the money (a very bad idea), but you don't need infrastructure projects to do that.

Govt can borrow at basically negative rates at the moment. Well, actually for last 4 years or so. You know, last 4 years that you guys have been promising inflation boom.

And I thought that quantitive easing being the reason for low rates have been put to death when Pimco bid on increase in rates once there was a break in QE few years ago. Pimco lost a lot of money because rates stayed low. Also, rates are low in western countries that had no QE. Apparently there is something about being able to borrow in your own currency...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

All of the Western central banks are manipulating interest rates. Whether they use QE or some other method is secondary. It's even questionable if the Fed ever did really suspend QE. They can do all kinds of back door deals. Recently China, which has said it isn't going to increase treasury holdings, increased treasury holdings. It was a one-shot deal, but it may have been the result of some bargain.

 

[boneyard bill]

We've already discussed that. The lead time for large infrastructure projects is so great that you can't be assured that the actual construction, where most of the jobs are created, will actually occur during the downturn.

So how did Roosevelt pull it off, and in the midst of a major depression?

What did Roosevelt pull off? Certainly not a stimulus as we did not recover due to his infrastructure projects, but if you have the longest depression in modern history, you do have a lot of time to plan. However, most of FDR's infrastructure projects were probably planned during the Hoover Administration. Hoover was very big on public works as an economic stimulus. The Public Works Administration was founded under Hoover, not FDR.

However, it doesn't stimulate. It's the broken window fallacy and has long ago been refuted.

 

[boneyard bill]

We've already discussed that. The lead time for large infrastructure projects is so great that you can't be assured that the actual construction, where most of the jobs are created, will actually occur during the downturn.

That is simply untrue. The lead time to repair roads isn't long. And there is nothing to prevent the planning to occur and then use those plans when needed. Moreover, if the infrastructure needs the repair, then it ought to occur even when the economy is not in a slump.

And there's that other little qualifier that I mentioned which is the ability to pay for it. Do you want to raise taxes to pay for it? Oops, there goes the stimulus - taxed into oblivion.

Nope. It's called borrowing. After all, why should citizens today entirely fund a project with positive net benefits over the next 10 to 40 years?

Your first point basically repeats what I've said. If you need to repair roads, then do it. If you don't, don't. Borrowing is still removing money from the private sector to have it spent in the public sector. Where's the stimulus? Your still caught up in the broken window fallacy.

If you're going to run a deficit, why not cut taxes? That is affect is much more immediate and requires very little planning. Oh yeah, Bush tried that in the first year of the recession. It didn't work. You don't stimulate anything by robbing Peter to pay Paul.

 

[laughing dog]

Your first point basically repeats what I've said. If you need to repair roads, then do it. If you don't, don't.

You seem to under the illusion that we, as nation, act in perfectly rational matter all of the time. The reality is that we postpone repairs and neglect infrastructure for a variety of reasons.

Borrowing is still removing money from the private sector to have it spent in the public sector. Where's the stimulus? Your still caught up in the broken window fallacy.

And you are still caught up in fantasy land that the private sector necessarily will achieve higher returns.

If you're going to run a deficit, why not cut taxes? That is affect is much more immediate and requires very little planning.

Why would you think it necessarily has a larger and immediate effect?

Oh yeah, Bush tried that in the first year of the recession. It didn't work. You don't stimulate anything by robbing Peter to pay Paul.

No one is robbing anyone, so your observation seems rather pointless.