A funny state of the economy

Opposed by Congress? I think not. Both parties are interested in the same thing but his own party has had control of both the Senate and the House, and obviously, the Executive.
s!



Awww you blew the ole excuse everyone uses to defend him., it is either A) Bush's fault and Obumma can't do it all or B) it is congress's fault for stopping the Great one from in-acting his hope and change...LOL
 
None of this explains why everyone is up in arms now rather than when the previous administration was doing the damage. Never heard a peep when the oil baron was in power ...
 
None of this explains why everyone is up in arms now rather than when the previous administration was doing the damage. Never heard a peep when the oil baron was in power ...

Are you joking?? there were more protests than not.. I guess we all only see what we want to see eh?
 
We did this to ourselves!
We now expect the Fed and the US Gov to bail us out!
We didn't deserve to be bailed out for our own stupidity!

I'm sorry to be the wet towel that puts it all into truth.

But the truth is the truth!

This has *some* technical truth, Bob, but it's faulty logic and misses the mark, overall.

All economic activity relies on market signals. Low interest rates at the FED signals profits in lending, to banks. Low rates on lending signals to businesses that now is the time to invest in long-term projects, even when consumers have given no indication that they intend to postpone current consumption, to free up resources to dedicate to those long-term projects. The coordination of production across time is disrupted. This causes people to both consume for the present *and* build for the future, regardless of savings, and diverts capital into unsustainable projects. This is the cause of the "boom-and-bust cycle" in the economy. Hayek won the Nobel Prize in 1974, for illustrating this fact.

Add to that, lending standards were artificially lowered by law, like the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA.)

As consumers and producers, we have no choice but to follow market signals in order to make decisions in our financial affairs. The FED distorts this fundamental aspect of all economic activity by controlling the price of money.

I recommend "Meltdown" by Tom Woods. Not only does it describe the 2008 economic collapse in detail, it's a great introduction to the Austrian Theory of the Business Cycle. It'll help you truly understand the FED.

None of this explains why everyone is up in arms now rather than when the previous administration was doing the damage. Never heard a peep when the oil baron was in power ...

There were peeps, plenty of people were disgusted with G-Dubs. The anti-war left was hysterical...and rightfully so. Mysteriously (or not), these folks have all but disappeared, today. Maybe they were just a bit disingenuous or they're just plain worn out. Folks who are really paying attention realize that it simply doesn't matter who gets elected to office.

One major difference is economic conditions. In fat times, there is a much higher tolerance for abuse than in lean times. Now that the lean times have arrived, it (almost) seems logical (for some) that the person sitting on the throne currently, is somehow to blame. He shares the blame, but so does every president since George Washington, regardless of stripe or banner. But when voters place the blame solely on politicians, they can really only blame themselves...they share in that responsibility.

In reality, the real blame lies on the FED because this is where the real power and influence lies. This is where working people should focus their anger and attention...worldwide.
 
Are you joking?? there were more protests than not.. I guess we all only see what we want to see eh?

Pull the other one, nhozo, it plays Jingle Bells. You might be surprised that I'm not the straw woman leftie that you seem to think I am. I'm no political warrior looking for things to justify my views. I just watch ... and the intensity of the US media when it comes to Obama is amazing. He's getting smashed. The other bloke got off easy.

But Vince, yeah, there is a lot more tolerance when things are going okay. Given the time lag of consequences of policy decisions, it's inevitable that the system will punish politicians who create and reward those who live off the fat of those measures or scrimp on infrastructure spending in the good times.

For sure, the system sucks in a number of ways but I don't think that throwing it all out in favour of an untested theoretical model is going to be a panacea either. I can't think of any time in human history that there's been a power vacuum at the top. Someone's always going to take.

Too many people, the weight of history, media barons' agendas, resources running down, competition for those resources, fundamentalism masquerading as The Answer ... not a recipe for smooth operating IMO.

Massive issues, no real answer ... so I play drums and tennis, and surf the net. I think it would be wonderful if an unencumbered free market could deliver but I can't see it. The US must be the freeest market in the world yet even with its incredible resources and developed economy it's doing worse on a range of metrics than a whole bunch of other countries with more regulated markets. The foreign debt is mind-blowing and that was always going to bite at some stage.
 
The US must be the freeest market in the world yet even with its incredible resources and developed economy it's doing worse on a range of metrics than a whole bunch of other countries with more regulated markets. The foreign debt is mind-blowing and that was always going to bite at some stage.

Pol, its the best system we have and its not perfect. Thats the duality of our times that we need to live with.
And you would be right to say the US is the proof of it. The US doomsday theorists seem to keep forgetting that in absolute terms on almost any parameter, the US still outdistances, W Europe, Japan,China etc by very long shots. The emerging markets rate of growths give us a indicator of things to come, and as Harry suggested a shift in world order, but it will be a long long time before the US relinquishes its status as the most successful nation state in history to China or anybody else.

Hers what Farid Zakaria says in his Book 'How America can survive The Rise of the Rest'

'Despite some eerie parallels between the position of the United States today and that of the British Empire a century ago, there are key differences. Britain's decline was driven by bad economics. The United States, in contrast, has the strength and dynamism to continue shaping the world -- but only if it can overcome its political dysfunction and reorient U.S. policy for a world defined by the rise of other powers.'

...
 
There a part of me that would love to see markets replace govt but it's an impossible dream. The first problem is that if you strip the power from government where does it go? Nature abhors a vacuum. You end up with multinationals as feudal lords - defacto government. Distortions caused by economies of scale would run riot even more than it's been allowed to do now. A recipe for instability ... and stability is the plank on which western prosperity was built.

I like the idea of the services a government provides being met by a competitive market, atleast services like public transport will be provided properly...

...I go with the philosophy that governments are pretty harmful, they shouldn't really get involved in the economy...

...if it wasn't for governments, there wouldn't be so many corporations getting out of hand with shonky business practices.

Less government interference = more economic competition = less monopolies = better for consumer

Libertarians are anarchists. Political "libertarians", such as the partyarchs involved with the LP, are something else entirely. The of libertarian philosophy is the Non-Aggression Principle (NAP), which when followed to its logical conclusion, consistently, cannot advocate statism in any form.

I see labels thrown around quite a bit, Libertarians believe in a state - but basically the bare minimum of state - one that protects your rights but doesn't get involved in the economy...

...anarchists go with the absolute removal of state...there is a difference...

...although how a government is going to stay standing without taxes is going to be a challenge because taxing anything is government interference in the economy which goes against the libertarian principle of the state not getting involved in the economy.

Free markets are everywhere. Have you ever sold something to another person, privately? Ever been to a yard sale? A flea market? Ever bought and/or sold something on the internet? In the USSR, the black market saved the lives of millions by supplying goods and services to people where the state had destroyed their ability to do it in the open. Again, the powerful already exploit the the less powerful...with the threat of death. This seems as barbaric, anti-social, and un-safe as could be imagined, since they use a monopoly on legal power to justify it and are accountable to no one. This is a subversion of the safeguards and accountability inhertent in voluntary, free market relationships (as illustrated.)

While that's true, there isn't such thing as a free market on a mass scale. When people are told they are in a free economy (when it comes to big markets) they are being lied to because there are always taxes and regulations.

Western prosperity was built atop state-capitalism. Think of this as a farm for free-range animals. Free-range animals have the illusion of freedom and thus are more productive. In the end, they still go to slaughter. Since state-capitalism resembles free markets in some ways, it is more productive than say, communism. Both systems are inevitable failures, however, it's just the degree of intervention into markets that determines how long this process takes.

Unfortunately too many left-wingers are confusing state-capitalism and free-market capitalism under the same banner of capitalism and then saying its bad.
 
Pull the other one, nhozo, it plays Jingle Bells. You might be surprised that I'm not the straw woman leftie that you seem to think I am. I'm no political warrior looking for things to justify my views. I just watch ... and the intensity of the US media when it comes to Obama is amazing. He's getting smashed. The other bloke got off easy.

Well you may be surprised to know I am not as ultra right wing as you think. Now that we have that out of the way I am wondering what US media you are watching wayy down there? Because honestly to make the statement that Bush got off easy compared to Obama even the bloodiest of the left would agree that this is a ludicrous statement.

If anything he is being treated by the media as any other president has been treated.. There are biased media outlets so you have to take that into consideration, if yoour watching Fox than they are biased to the right, if your watching msnbc, cbs, abc, nbc,cnn, or any hollywood actor or comedian wannabe then they are biased towards the left.


hard to tell these days so ya kind of gotta sort through all the BS,
 
From my perspective in the UK, George Bush was heavily criticized while in power, and still is. His name is met with derision from all sides, the left wingers think he was a megalomaniacal oil-hungry warmongering moron, and the right-wingers think he was just a moron. But everyone's agreed on that, even if it's not strictly true. Obama, on the other hand, is given the benefit of the doubt, it seems. I've not seen a media outlet heavily criticize him here, not like Bush had been.
 
...

Guys, lets please keep the politics out of this thread. Politics is personal and its a no no on this forum.

Bashing administrations wasn't the intention of this thread either. The idea was to discuss the sweeping economic changes this recession/depression is bringing about and how as laymen we are reacting to it and the policies or the lack of that might be contributing to the mess.

...
 
...I go with the philosophy that governments are pretty harmful, they shouldn't really get involved in the economy...

...if it wasn't for governments, there wouldn't be so many corporations getting out of hand with shonky business practices.

Less government interference = more economic competition = less monopolies = better for consumer

I see labels thrown around quite a bit, Libertarians believe in a state - but basically the bare minimum of state - one that protects your rights but doesn't get involved in the economy...

...anarchists go with the absolute removal of state...there is a difference...

...although how a government is going to stay standing without taxes is going to be a challenge because taxing anything is government interference in the economy which goes against the libertarian principle of the state not getting involved in the economy.

While that's true, there isn't such thing as a free market on a mass scale...

Unfortunately too many left-wingers are confusing state-capitalism and free-market capitalism under the same banner of capitalism and then saying its bad.

Bass...I countered all of these assertions and agreed with others, in detail, already. I'll just refer back to the conversation between Polly and I.

The only bit that I'll add is; you're confusing classical liberalism with libertarianism. It matters not who lays claim to words but rather the content of their character and the measure of their actions. There is a rich history here, on both sides, dating back to The Enlightenment (and even prior.)

...
The idea was to discuss the sweeping economic changes this recession/depression is bringing about and how as laymen we are reacting to it and the policies or the lack of that might be contributing to the mess.

This is the most productive course of discussion. It is possible to focus on economics and leave political debate out of the picture, but it requires a slightly more superficial dialogue.

I'll reiterate; the Austrian Theory of the Business Cycle explains the current depression as well as recessions/depressions, past and present. See this post:

http://drummerworld.com/forums/showpost.php?p=768167&postcount=64
 
For the record, Aydee, my post was only about popular perception of each president in the UK, and not intended to be partisan. I really wouldn't be able to pick a favourite myself, the real power lies away from the White House. That famous Mayer Amschel Rothschild quotation comes to mind, "Permit me to issue and control the money of a nation, and I care not who makes its laws."
 
Pol, its the best system we have and its not perfect. Thats the duality of our times that we need to live with.
And you would be right to say the US is the proof of it. The US doomsday theorists seem to keep forgetting that in absolute terms on almost any parameter, the US still outdistances, W Europe, Japan,China etc by very long shots.

Better on absolute terms ... against hugely overpopulated countries with depleted or far fewer resources. Lower life expectancy. High obesity rates. Even weaker on the happiness index. Highest incarceration rates. High murder rates. War after war. Now you're going to have to deal with the Tea Party. You have a massive foreign debt and the main thing that seems to be holding the US up is that the main creditor, China, cannot afford to see the US to go downhill quickly ... but rest assured, they have the money and they are in a position to pull the strings. Agree with PQ that whomever has the money has the power.

That's why my heart sinks a little whenever I see Oz blindly following in the US's wake, not necessarily the good things - just the wars, the violence, the hunt for bigger / better / flashier ... the obsession with the zero sum game of positional goods. If we took on the US's jazz or customer service ethos it would be more encouraging.

Nhozo ... Fox News is the main one. There's another ... forgot the name ... begins with C, a three letter acronym. I was on a two-day course recently. Every time we had a break I'd see the TV in the breakout room showing this US channel. The only time they didn't have commentators wringing their hands about Obama was during the reviews for the new Harry Potter film. It made Sydney's Channel 9 look like an honest broker. I'm looking forward to seeing the new HP film ...

Even plain old Google news suddenly became full of stuff kicking Obama. You'd think that a healthcare safety net was something straight out of the Kremlin in the 70s rather than something most OECD countries have.

*bracing for the flames*
 
Nhozo ... Fox News is the main one. There's another ... forgot the name ... begins with C, a three letter acronym.
and CNN ... too funny ....​
CNN is actually a news channel. And although there is bias there (I mean really, there's bias "everywhere" now) ... they at least cover news ... and relate facts.​
Fox, on the other hand, is strictly a very right-wing conservative "entertainment" channel ... masquerading as a news channel. On a perpetual 24/7 Obama-bash cycle. They get, on an average 13-18% of the viewers market, which is basically all of the conservative, right-wing Tea Party people.​
...

and how as laymen we are reacting to it and the policies or the lack of that might be contributing to the mess.

...
The current economy, and situation ... kinda like the Cloverfield monster trashing New York. What can you do about it? Duck for cover when it's right on top of you. Run when you get a chance.​
 

Attachments

  • cloverfield1.0.jpg
    cloverfield1.0.jpg
    7.9 KB · Views: 108
It's a wonder ANYONE knows what's really going on. Try watching MSNBC for a few minutes and then switch to Fox News. Your head will explode!

I wish I could read or hear solid proven facts from machines.

Obama is being criticized just as much as Bush was, in fact I think Bush might have had it worse, at least in my circles. I think I depends who and where you are. I work at a car dealership, and most of who I work with are conservatives, so I hear more Obama bashing. My friends and I, however, are a bunch of hippies, so we do the Bush bashing.

I'm open minded enough to know it goes both ways, both sides have their pros and cons, and everybody will never be happy.
 
Obama is being criticized just as much as Bush was, in fact I think Bush might have had it worse, at least in my circles.

Sure PK, but personal circles are different. I'm talking about the mainstream media - the stuff that a high proportion of the population tune absorb daily.

GWB seemed to cop flak right at the very end but until then he had a saloon ride when compared with the nonstop Obama bashing. I keep reading how he's turning the US into a socialist state for bringing in a healthcare safety net like Europe, Australia & NZ. Canada have one too, don't they?

One thing I found really freaky was during the earlier years of the Iraq war ... there were surveys showing that well over half of Americans thought Saddam was closely allied with Al Qaeda, when they were actually fierce ideological enemies, and his dictatorship largely kept Al Qaeda out of the country.
 
One thing I found really freaky was during the earlier years of the Iraq war ... there were surveys showing that well over half of Americans thought Saddam was closely allied with Al Qaeda, when they were actually fierce ideological enemies, and his dictatorship largely kept Al Qaeda out of the country.

I know that was interesting. Under Saddam Iraq qas a secular country and reaped the benefits of its oil production and the stranglehold it had on oil prices...ofcourse, it was all done with an iron fist.

GWB seemed to cop flak right at the very end but until then he had a saloon ride when compared with the nonstop Obama bashing. I keep reading how he's turning the US into a socialist state for bringing in a healthcare safety net like Europe, Australia & NZ. Canada have one too, don't they?

Australia, NZ and Canada are hardly socialist countries, the closest example of socialism is a country like Sweden, and up until the recent financial cunundrum social-democracy (as it has been called) has been the winning economic formula...even then, Sweden still embraces a market economy.

Sweden has public healthcare but atleast all of those taxes those people pay go into a functioning service.

I think the McCarthist-era has done a bit to minds of a lot of Americans, when they think socialism they think USSR - which was actually a terrible example of socialism in practice.

BTW, I'm not a supporter of public healthcare, but hey - sometimes it works, in Australia its going down the toilet at moment (nurses waited for weeks to get their pay, and waiting lists are getting really long) but atleast your check ups get subsidized.

It's a wonder ANYONE knows what's really going on. Try watching MSNBC for a few minutes and then switch to Fox News. Your head will explode!

I love watching propaganda with the idea in my mind that it is propaganda, it's amusing.
 
GWB seemed to cop flak right at the very end but until then he had a saloon ride when compared with the nonstop Obama bashing. I keep reading how he's turning the US into a socialist state for bringing in a healthcare safety net like Europe, Australia & NZ. Canada have one too, don't they?
Absolutely correct. We're at a huge turning point, in this country. They like to call this country a "melting" pot, yet it's run by basically Protestant white guys. And that's gonna change here, real soon. The 40% caucasian minority/majority is soon gonna be evened by the growing latino population. With the women, african-american, asian, etc. voters ... that's how Obama got elected.​
Now if all you watch (or mostly) is Fox and CNN, Fox is a totally "good old boy" network. They just recently "added" Juan Williams (one day a week?) after he was fired from NPR. The rest of the crew. Glen Beck, Bret Baier, Neil Cacuto, Bill O'Reilly. And darn near every female commentator/annalist they have on looks like barbie.​

One thing I found really freaky was during the earlier years of the Iraq war ... there were surveys showing that well over half of Americans thought Saddam was closely allied with Al Qaeda, when they were actually fierce ideological enemies, and his dictatorship largely kept Al Qaeda out of the country.
Again, people like to believe what they're told/what they "want" to hear, which ain't always the truth. When we first entered Iraq, I told people this was gonna be a 10 year war. Most didn't believe me.​
But look at the facts. Sadam had the 4th largest army "in the world". Now, such a huge military presence in a country like Iraq is a sure indicator that "something ain't right". That "something" was, Sadam needed all those soldiers/tanks sitting on the general population to keep a civil war at bay. We go in there, take Sadam out, and "boom", suprise ... these folks really don't like each other, not so much.​
People still won't accept that it's "all about oil" .... Iraq, second largest oil reserves in the world, behind Saudi Arabia, hmmmm, that they just put pen-to-paper, the largest oil deal "ever" to go down, between Iraq and China. Throw into the equation 2010 was the year China produced/sold 13 million cars (Japan 8 million, the US 6 million). State of the economy! Bush Sr. & Bush Jr. .... oil guys ... and they know a few oil guys.​
 
Sure PK, but personal circles are different. I'm talking about the mainstream media - the stuff that a high proportion of the population tune absorb daily.

You're right, in that case. Bush was criticized by smaller "news" shows, like Jon Stewart and Bill Maher, but not that much by 24 hour news networks. I thought you meant on a personal level, like how many people make remarks in everyday conversation.
 
Back
Top