Archive

Disgusted with obama administration - Part II

  • BoatShoes
    Here's an idea...since the Private Sector and the Foreign Sector Net want to save! Why not have the federal government create a savings account at the FED (issue a treasury security) and allow them to do so when the government injects more money into the domestic private sector with more government spending or takes less out with less taxes.

    It's a Win, Win.
  • BoatShoes
    And, despite what I'm suggesting being characterized as radical it is not. And the way Keynes justified it...it is not either. This is what Keynes had to say about using the government to support aggregate and demand and induce investment as the necessary support for the ability of individual initiative to thrive!
    [INDENT]The central controls [my theory claims are] necessary to ensure full employment will, of course, involve a large extension of the traditional functions of government. Furthermore, the modern classical theory has itself called attention to various conditions in which the free play of economic forces may need to be curbed or guided. But here will still remain a wide field for the exercise of private initiative and responsibility. Within this field the traditional advantages of individualism will still hold good.
    [/INDENT]
    [INDENT]Let us stop for a moment to remind ourselves what these advantages are. They are partly advantages of efficiency — the advantages of decentralisation and of the play of self-interest. The advantage to efficiency of the decentralisation of decisions and of individual responsibility is even greater, perhaps, than the nineteenth century supposed; and the reaction against the appeal to self-interest may have gone too far. But, above all, individualism, if it can be purged of its defects and its abuses, is the best safeguard of personal liberty in the sense that, compared with any other system, it greatly widens the field for the exercise of personal choice. It is also the best safeguard of the variety of life, which emerges precisely from this extended field of personal choice, and the loss of which is the greatest of all the losses of the homogeneous or totalitarian state.

    For this variety preserves the traditions which embody the most secure and successful choices of former generations; it colours the present with the diversification of its fancy; and, being the handmaid of experiment as well as of tradition and of fancy, it is the most powerful instrument to better the future.

    Whilst, therefore, the enlargement of the functions of government, involved in the task of adjusting to one another the propensity to consume and the inducement to invest, would seem to a nineteenth-century publicist or to a contemporary American financier to be a terrific encroachment on individualism. I defend it, on the contrary, both as the only practicable means of avoiding the destruction of existing economic forms in their entirety and as the condition of the successful functioning of individual initiative.

    For if effective demand is deficient, not only is the public scandal of wasted resources intolerable, but the individual enterpriser who seeks to bring these resources into action is operating with the odds loaded against him. The game of hazard which he plays is furnished with many zeros, so that the players as a whole will lose if they have the energy and hope to deal all the cards. Hitherto the increment of the world’s wealth has fallen short of the aggregate of positive individual savings; and the difference has been made up by the losses of those whose courage and initiative have not been supplemented by exceptional skill or unusual good fortune. But if effective demand is adequate, average skill and average good fortune will be enough.

    The authoritarian state systems of today seem to solve the problem of unemployment at the expense of efficiency and of freedom. It is certain that the world will not much longer tolerate the unemployment which, apart from brief intervals of excitement, is associated and in my opinion, inevitably associated with present-day capitalistic individualism. But it may be possible by a right analysis of the problem to cure the disease whilst preserving efficiency and freedom.
    [/INDENT]
    Keynes offered the types of things I propose as a way to preserve the capitalism against the threats of marxism and totalitarinism that were sweeping the world at the time. If we continue to allow massive unemployment and stagnation to persist while advancing non-sense arguments that American entrepreneurs will not invest because of hurt feelz from Obama we risk the very kind loss of capitalism and individualism to real leftists that Keynes and his practical solutions sought to avoid.

    Businesses and consumers have the odds loaded against them...not because of Fear of Obama...but because they don't have enough income, money, access to the means of exchange!
  • gut
    For the millionth time, Keynes NEVER advocated the govt accumulating massive piles of debt. His research and theory is not based on the govt's ability, even in the short-term, to prop-up aggregate demand by piling on even more to the mountain of debt.

    Continue to pretend investors have "hurt feelings" over Obama. This is simply obfuscation and ignoring the very real anti-business agenda of this administration. Nor is the massive pile of debt clearly dragging on the economy purely Obama's fault (although he has put the policy on steroids). Businesses don't base decisions on their personal opinion of Obama, they based it on the economic realities he has helped create.

    Either the stimulus and "aggregate demand pump" is a failure, or Obama's implementation of it is. There's no other conclusion - you've even posted the data right there staring you in the face.
  • gut
    BoatShoes;1465207 wrote:... they should not be expecting future taxes and shouldn't be saving for them and they shouldn't be expecting an economy being weighed down by a bloated government as publicly forecasted deficits have decreased as well as long term healthcare spending.
    Do you read anything that hasn't been thru the liberal/keynesian bullshit machine?

    They shouldn't expect future tax increases WHEN THEIR TAXES JUST INCREASED?!?

    And a deficit falling under $1T for the first time in 4-5 years means we aren't going to continue to add to the mountain of debt?!?

    Again, it's hard to take you seriously when you make such statements. You are completely out of touch with the business community and dismissive of the realities no matter how often it is pointed out to you.
  • gut
    BoatShoes;1465195 wrote:This means that the government is not injecting enough net financial assets into the private economy either because taxes are too high or government spending is too low in comparison to the private sector's desire to save!
    No it doesn't. You're not grasping the nuances of an ivory tower theory and seeing the disconnect in the business world. ROI is not static, nor are investment horizons just a year or two. What might have a positive ROI today may very well not a few years down the road as rates, taxes and inflation float up. So I'll make investments that make sense with a highly uncertain 5-yr plan, and the excess cash floating around will just go to shore up my balance sheet to serve as a cushion.
  • BoatShoes
    gut;1465264 wrote:For the millionth time, Keynes NEVER advocated the govt accumulating massive piles of debt. His research and theory is not based on the govt's ability, even in the short-term, to prop-up aggregate demand by piling on even more to the mountain of debt.

    Continue to pretend investors have "hurt feelings" over Obama. This is simply obfuscation and ignoring the very real anti-business agenda of this administration. Nor is the massive pile of debt clearly dragging on the economy purely Obama's fault (although he has put the policy on steroids).

    Either the stimulus and "aggregate demand pump" is a failure, or Obama's implementation of it is. There's no other conclusion - you've even posted the data right there staring you in the face.
    Take a good look at the leves of debt to GDP in Great Britain when Keynes wrote the General Theory.




    Much higher than ours!

    The meager injection of aggregate demand was a failure as was Obama and everyone in government's implementation of it! We were only really saved by automatic injections of aggregate demand from SSI, SS, unemployment benefits, food stamps, medicare and medicaid that go into effect automatically and heroic efforts by Ben Bernanke and Co. Obama has been a deficit scold since April of 2009! He's just slightly less bad than Republicans/Conservatives who think "pro-business" always has to do with the supply side even when there's marginal supply side constraints and a severe lack of effective demand.

    Nevermind of course that conservatives consistently fight against the best thing for the labor market on the supply side that we could do...Medicare for All...and so we got half ass obamcare which is hurting the supply side at the margin.
  • BoatShoes
    gut;1465269 wrote:Do you read anything that hasn't been thru the liberal/keynesian bullshit machine?

    They shouldn't expect future tax increases WHEN THEIR TAXES JUST INCREASED?!?

    And a deficit falling under $1T for the first time in 4-5 years means we aren't going to continue to add to the mountain of debt?!?

    Again, it's hard to take you seriously when you make such statements. You are completely out of touch with the business community and dismissive of the realities no matter how often it is pointed out to you.
    That is what follows from the neo-classical model! Debt Finance is just current taxes according to this and will result in neutralizing any effect in the real economy. Now the investors/entrepreneurs with rational expectations know their marginal tax rate and know lower projected budget costs in healthcare, etc. and can foresee lower future government borrowing and subsequent taxes and need not save now for future tax increases.

    And that's assuming that model is not complete bullshit that doesn't match the real world anyway...which it DOESN"T!

    In reality, yes, businesses and consumers spend less because of higher taxes now because it takes away from their income...meaning less money to spend and concurrently LOWER aggregate demand.

    You're defending your model that doesn't match the real world when arguing for effects that stem from a keynesian model.
  • BoatShoes
    gut;1465273 wrote:No it doesn't. You're not grasping the nuances of an ivory tower theory and seeing the disconnect in the business world. ROI is not static, nor are investment horizons just a year or two. What might have a positive ROI today may very well not a few years down the road as rates, taxes and inflation float up. So I'll make investments that make sense with a highly uncertain 5-yr plan, and the excess cash floating around will just go to shore up my balance sheet to serve as a cushion.
    Inflation expectations over time horizons beyond 5 years are not floating up. There is no evidence that taxes will raise in the next 5 years as the current rates have been made permanent and the deficit is closing rapidly. Investors could easily foresee positive ROI based on these interest rates if there was predictable demand for products, commodities, services, etc. while predictably forecasting low inflation and no tax increases. The top marginal rate has not been higher than 39.6 since the mid eighties.

    If you don't foresee predictable ROI it's because of a lack of effective demand in most cases under current conditions.
  • BoatShoes
    Furthermore, I don't think you're using the term "Crowding Out" the way it is ordinarily used. Hoarding because of some kind of skittishness, or lack of confidence over who the president is, regulatory, tax, federal reserve or other kinds of "anti-business" policies isn't typically referred to as "crowding out" IMHO.
  • believer
    BoatShoes;1465288 wrote:There is no evidence that taxes will raise in the next 5 years as the current rates have been made permanent...
    I'm no financial genius but I've been paying taxes for over 4 decades. Federal, state, and local taxes WILL raise one way or another either directly or indirectly via creative taxing schemes like fees, fines (see ObamaKare for an example), etc. C'mon. Stop sucking down the Kool Aid. :rolleyes:
    BoatShoes;1465288 wrote:...and the deficit is closing rapidly.
    What?? Post all the graphs from leftist/Keynesian blogs you want but anyone with any amount of common sense knows that the morons running our government are spending far more than they're taking in. The ONLY way the deficit bubble will decrease is via spending cuts and/or tax increases. I see tax increases on the horizon but ZERO evidence The Beltway buffoons on both sides of the political aisle are showing any inkling of cutting spending.
    BoatShoes;1465288 wrote:Investors could easily foresee positive ROI based on these interest rates if there was predictable demand for products, commodities, services, etc. while predictably forecasting low inflation and no tax increases. The top marginal rate has not been higher than 39.6 since the mid eighties.

    If you don't foresee predictable ROI it's because of a lack of effective demand in most cases under current conditions.
    Well, under current political conditions I would have to agree with that statement.
  • believer
    BoatShoes;1465288 wrote:There is no evidence that taxes will raise in the next 5 years as the current rates have been made permanent...
    I'm no financial genius but I've been paying taxes for over 4 decades. Federal, state, and local taxes WILL raise one way or another either directly or indirectly via creative taxing schemes like fees, fines (see ObamaKare for an example), etc. C'mon. Stop sucking down the Kool Aid. :rolleyes:
    BoatShoes;1465288 wrote:...and the deficit is closing rapidly.
    What?? Post all the graphs from leftist/Keynesian blogs you want but anyone with any amount of common sense knows that the morons running our government are spending far more than they're taking in. The ONLY way the deficit bubble will decrease is via spending cuts and/or tax increases. I see tax increases on the horizon but ZERO evidence The Beltway buffoons on both sides of the political aisle are showing any inkling of cutting spending.
    BoatShoes;1465288 wrote:Investors could easily foresee positive ROI based on these interest rates if there was predictable demand for products, commodities, services, etc. while predictably forecasting low inflation and no tax increases. The top marginal rate has not been higher than 39.6 since the mid eighties.

    If you don't foresee predictable ROI it's because of a lack of effective demand in most cases under current conditions.
    Well, under current political conditions I would have to agree with that statement.
  • gut
    BoatShoes;1465291 wrote:Furthermore, I don't think you're using the term "Crowding Out" the way it is ordinarily used. Hoarding because of some kind of skittishness, or lack of confidence over who the president is, regulatory, tax, federal reserve or other kinds of "anti-business" policies isn't typically referred to as "crowding out" IMHO.
    There are multiple ways this administration is killing growth. "Free money", excessive stimulus and deficit spending contribute to the crowding out effect, albeit that is just one manner in which policies have knee-capped this recovery. My use/definition of "crowding out effect" is not wrong, your understanding is limited and insufficient. Govt also crowds out private investment when it competes or supplies the capital - resulting in the business sitting on cash that it would have used for the project the govt instead funded.

    You really need to try looking objectively at the data, and seeking data from a variety of sources. The simple fact is EU growth has consistently been in the 1-2% range for decades. Ask yourself why that it is...Honestly ask yourself what, structurally, could be hampering good, sustainable growth.

    It's pretty generally accepted that bigger govt = drag on growth, both via taking resources away from the private sector and also by sapping capital from more productive uses to feed big govt. But if you want to argue that European-style socialism is better in totality, fine. Just spare us the BS (haha, also your user initials...interesting) that these policies are helping, rather than hurting, growth. Intelligent people know better.
  • QuakerOats
    [h=3]Editorial: EPA Circumvents Law In Assault On Job-Creating Endeavor.[/h]In an editorial, the Colorado Springs (CO) Gazette (7/29) said, “The Environmental Protection Agency is going to extraordinary lengths to stop a mining project in Bristol Bay, Alaska, before it’s underway, denying the region 15,000 new jobs and $2 billion in added tax revenue.” According to the Gazette, “Without looking at the official mine plans, EPA made up its own and declared it too dangerous.” Ross Eisenberg, vice president of the National Association of Manufacturers, as quoted in The Hill, “The real danger that we’ve all got is, if they can figure out how to get this done with Pebble, they can get this done in other areas.” Eisenberg said, “There are lots of groups that don’t like mining. This is one way to get the mining to stop.”



    change we can believe in ...
  • BoatShoes
    gut;1465856 wrote:There are multiple ways this administration is killing growth. "Free money", excessive stimulus and deficit spending contribute to the crowding out effect, albeit that is just one manner in which policies have knee-capped this recovery. My use/definition of "crowding out effect" is not wrong, your understanding is limited and insufficient. Govt also crowds out private investment when it competes or supplies the capital - resulting in the business sitting on cash that it would have used for the project the govt instead funded.

    You really need to try looking objectively at the data, and seeking data from a variety of sources. The simple fact is EU growth has consistently been in the 1-2% range for decades. Ask yourself why that it is...Honestly ask yourself what, structurally, could be hampering good, sustainable growth.

    It's pretty generally accepted that bigger govt = drag on growth, both via taking resources away from the private sector and also by sapping capital from more productive uses to feed big govt. But if you want to argue that European-style socialism is better in totality, fine. Just spare us the BS (haha, also your user initials...interesting) that these policies are helping, rather than hurting, growth. Intelligent people know better.
    1. Keynesianism is not even remotely the same as Socialism. I'm sitting here advocating a full payroll tax cut. I haven't said anything in months about more spending just to avoid you using this red herring. So, stop conflating large welfare states with the idea that the U.S. might rescue the economy now but doing a large, deficit financed tax cut for people who will spend the money...i.e. full payroll tax cut and maybe even more direct helicopter drop money into average ordinary bank accounts.


    2. Stop telling me to look at the data from the EU when it is you who clearly isn't.


    http://m.guardian.co.uk/business/2013/jun/27/ireland-back-recession-austerity-data-revision

    What a headline:

    "Ireland falls back into recession despite multi-billion Euro Austerity Drive"

    Supply side effects always matter but they are ancillary to the problems coming from contracting aggregate demand from austerity. If anything you're saying is true (which it isn't), where are the entrepreneurs and businesses jumping now that Business is being less crowded out by gubmint.

    3. D0000D. This so called "excessive stimulus" and "free money" and "large deficit spending" is all being reduced and yet there's no increased business activity that would evidence crowding out from this! Either way, if there had been crowding out, interest rates would've risen but they did not during all those last several years but they did not! Government is not crowding anything out. It's not taking and competing with capital when there is this much slack and excess capacity in the economy. Period.
  • BoatShoes
    believer;1465630 wrote:I'm no financial genius but I've been paying taxes for over 4 decades. Federal, state, and local taxes WILL raise one way or another either directly or indirectly via creative taxing schemes like fees, fines (see ObamaKare for an example), etc. C'mon. Stop sucking down the Kool Aid. :rolleyes:



    What?? Post all the graphs from leftist/Keynesian blogs you want but anyone with any amount of common sense knows that the morons running our government are spending far more than they're taking in. The ONLY way the deficit bubble will decrease is via spending cuts and/or tax increases. I see tax increases on the horizon but ZERO evidence The Beltway buffoons on both sides of the political aisle are showing any inkling of cutting spending.



    Well, under current political conditions I would have to agree with that statement.
    You don't believe graphs that show definitively that spending is going down, taxes have been locked in at permanent rates and raised and that the deficit is decreasing. Thanks for providing corroborating evidence that the economic man with ricardian neutrality of neoclassical models is no match for partisan Republicans who knows things that just ain't so.
  • QuakerOats
    http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/07/01/Health-Insurance-Rates-May-Double-Triple-For-Healthy-Americans?utm_source=contentsharing&utm_medium=linkexchange&utm_term=postion4&utm_content=Health-Insurance-Rates-May-Double-Triple-For-Healthy-Americans&utm_campaign=foxnews



    Change we can believe in ...
  • QuakerOats
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2013/07/01/the-insiders-democrats-are-trying-to-suppress-the-confusion-and-hide-the-cost-of-obamacare/?hpid=z2



    The nightmare continues to unfold.
  • jmog
    Oh, don't worry, they are not pushing off the employer mandate by another year, to 2015.

    I wonder why? Oh wait, we are having elections in 2014 and the skyrocketing costs in 2014 might just hurt the Ds in the mid terms.
  • believer
    jmog;1467435 wrote:Oh, don't worry, they are not pushing off the employer mandate by another year, to 2015.

    I wonder why? Oh wait, we are having elections in 2014 and the skyrocketing costs in 2014 might just hurt the Ds in the mid terms.
    Despicable Me POTUS strikes again.
  • gut
    jmog;1467435 wrote:.. and the skyrocketing costs in 2014 might just hurt the Ds in the mid terms.
    Between that and student loan rates doubling, the young and naive Dems are going to get an early education on the crushing weight of taxation.

    Obamakare obviously isn't going to start out smoothly, but I have my doubts about how good or bad it will be longer term. One thing I am fairly certain of is "premiums" on young people must necessarily rise significantly, and they are going to be very pissed about that because socialism only works when someone else pays for it!

    And the key difference vs. say SS & Medicare is there's not really an alternative to compare. It's also insurance, but insurance for which you have no comparison. But now young people who might see their plan costs double or triple vs. what they were paying just last year are not so easily fooled.

    Anyway, it will be interesting to see the fallout. Redistribution might be popular when you are talking rich vs. poor because of the relative numbers, but when you are talking young vs. old it's a tougher sell to take care of/support the generation that has saddled us with $15T+ in debt and counting.
  • Ty Webb
    Why isn't anyone talking about how they had to revise job numbers from April and May UPWARDS
  • tk421
    The youth of this country are going to get a rude awakening after a couple years of Obamacare being in full force. "Universal" healthcare is only good when you aren't the ones paying for it.

    I also think the individual mandate is going to end up getting pushed back, the Democrats will have to. They just gave a pass to businesses but are still going to make individuals pay a fee, they'll get crushed in the elections for that.
  • QuakerOats
    If the Supremes ruled the madate was a tax, how can the Dictator-in-Chief unilaterally suspend the 'tax' from his executive branch perch? Only congress has the power to lay and collect taxes. Oh wait, I guess that was back when we had people with at least 2 ounces of integrity in gubmint.

    Obviously the whole thing should be sent to the trash heap, but this latest development is somewhat telling.
  • QuakerOats
  • QuakerOats
    OBAMA ORDERS FED WORKERS: SPY ON EACH OTHER

    Watch lifestyles, attitudes and behaviors...
    Odd working hours, unexplained travel...
    Monitor co-workers stress, divorce, financial problems...
    Track online activities...
    Those failing to report face penalties, criminal charges...