Do you believe in completely free markets or should there be some govt. regulation?
US Presidential Election: Tuesday November 6th, 2012
- Thread starter Team Brian GB
- Start date
- Status
Do you believe in completely free markets or should there be some govt. regulation?
Of course it's not acceptable. But it is as a consequence of the readjustment. It's idiotic and frankly stupid to borrow more money so that a small proportion of people stay employed. Creating federal/government/state-employment is expensive and unproductive, and will be near impossible to remove later on. I'm more than happy for federal governments to increase spending in recessions if they were remotely capable of clawing it back. However, it's very, very clear, that in the US and Europe, even during booms, spending > income. I think the biggest lesson in this is excessive borrowing. I have no confidence in the US government, the Greek, Italian or Spanish governments that they can manage their finances is such a way. The second problem is that in the UK we spend more in debt interest, than we do than the schools budget. If you cannot see that as a problem then I don't know what is.
Yes it was. This is a sovereign debt crisis. The same fecking debt that most European countries struggle with. The primary cause of this is unsustainable government borrowing and inappropriate risk assessment by banks. How come the Obama stimulus was an absolute failure? How about the Gordon Brown VAT cut? This is pure Keynesian economics and failed miserably, because it never solved the sovereign debt problem.
Like I said, I don't believe in the fairness argument. And this exploitation you think about is pure bollocks. It's emotive left-wing bullshit. What greed are you pouting? Businesses are run to make a profit, this might be greed to you I guess. True greed would be the European populous of Greece, Spain, Italy and the UK and voting in idiotic governments who gave them what they wanted. Who wanted more spending, more spending, more spending. Hey, you got it. Eventually someone calls in the loans and caught on to the fact that the borrowing was unsustainable.
I believe in some markets you need government. Government is there to intervene and regulate when the market cant function. So delivering health care, education for the young, protection for the disabled. Delivery and maintain public goods (where free-riders are prominent). It can also be used to co-ordinate, but no necessarily finance some provision of service (infrastructure projects).
I'm happy for banking regulation reform (LIBOR revamp), and perhaps even splitting up the banks into smaller ones (if international consensus). I am against banning bank bonuses - on the simply fact that those bonuses and often performance related (to their own performance) and deserving. The banks overall performance is usually down to one arm of the bank racking up huge losses. Its a bit like saying all the M&S employees will have no bonuses because the clothing didn't sell well this year. The biggest problem is that we are penalising people who probably didn't make any mistakes, but inaccurately believed sophisticated economic models that nobody really understood how they worked. The biggest failure in the banking system was bad information, and poor risk modelling, not really greed. If the banks had foresight, these mistakes would not have happened.
It is getting ridiculously close now, even on the Electoral College map. Romney has 191 votes pretty much tied up according to current polls, with Obama looking good for 221. It would take less than a 1% swing in four States to give Romney victory, which is a little scary. With such a large cash advantage anything could happen in the next few weeks.
Florida (29) -0.6%
Ohio (18) -0.7%
Iowa (6) -0.2%
Virginia (13) -0.6%
N.Carolina (15) +2.0%
Florida (29) -0.6%
Ohio (18) -0.7%
Iowa (6) -0.2%
Virginia (13) -0.6%
N.Carolina (15) +2.0%
Expected, the polls have yet to filter in the Dem convention bounce, and is tracking the Romney bounce.
There is no doubt that Obama is in the lead, and will still be after the convention bounce is over.
Spain were running a budget surplus in the years before the crisis.
This is hardly substantial given the massive capital influx and property boom in Spain.
I'm not sure you have much of a clue to be honest. The cause of government debts now is the fall out from a private sector crisis which decreased the tax take and increased welfare spending by throwing lots of people into unemployment.
Well you're just a moral bankrupt then. Capitalism has relied on exploitation of other people's resources or labour. They've about run out of external things to exploit and have begun to focus inwardly (see US workers' wages as share of GDP declining over 20 years).
A-Level bollocks. Of course the budget deficit increases in a recession. The point is that despite Spain's HUGE increase in tax intake from the 90's onwards, the massive expansion in tourism and tax intake, the massive foreign cheap capital for the EU and investment. They barely had a budget surplus, and had high unemployment. The point is, as I raised earlier, failure of the banking system is assess risk properly, and eventually, the government's inability and incapacity to have enough money to deal with a downturn. Capitalism has existed for about 3000+ years. The house you live in, the computer your typing on, the internet provider you use, the server this forum is running on... all brought to you by capitalism. I'm sorry if you feel exploited by this.
Capitalism's only been around for about 500 years if that. All those things you mention were brought to me by the ingenuity of people and their hard work, the fact that some greedy cnuts have creamed off a lot of the money is the scandal.
Capitalism has existed for about 3000+ years. The house you live in, the computer your typing on, the internet provider you use, the server this forum is running on... all brought to you by capitalism. I'm sorry if you feel exploited by this.
So basically you wish the government had more money so it could provide a bigger stimulus to the economy in a downturn? Sounds pretty Keynesian to me.
There isn't much of a convention bounce these days. CNN did a comparison of the last few years and conventions barely impact the polls these days.
Not to mention only a small number of people watch the conventions: Nielson's numbers for the RNC show there were around 20 million viewers during the peak 10:00pm time slot. You have to figure 75% of those were the converted so the potential to gain voters is extremely limited.
That aside the State polls haven't pulled in the GOP convention numbers yet.
Except that Neo-Keynesianism doesn't say borrow unsustainably (let alone that banks should take inappropriate risks). When it does say to invest is in a liquidity trap resulting from a demand-based depression, such as this.
I like the way you phrase 'How come the Obama stimulus was an absolute failure?' as if that's just a fact. Whereas of the 15 major economics papers assessing its impact, 12 confirm that it did work, and one says it may have.
Free-markets have been around for millennia. And again, if you are being really pedantic, capitalism has been around for 400 years, but there really isn't a huge amount of difference between the two in the current economic context.
Not sure what 'scandal' you're referring to, or which greedy cnuts.
It's keynesian, spending during a deficit. The biggest problem is the source of the stimulus, the non-keynesians believe you should not borrow because it will result in higher longer-run interest rates which is what happened. At this point in time, this is truly the case in many European countries. The problem with keynesian lovers is they all seem to disappear when the economy is good, and more than happy to tout even more spending in good times (which is not what keynes suggested). So again.. I heard no calls from the left, or the right to build budget surpluses or reduce spending in good times.
Like I mentioned earlier, there is imperfection in current economic thinking. But clearly, the keynesian position is not justified in a sovereign debt crisis. It's not the solution for most European countries.
Re Obama stimulus: Its had an effect, any spending would. The US isn't in a sovereign debt crisis, and can borrow still relatively cheaply to afford stimulus packages at the moment, but eventually these will accumulate without reducing long term debt burden. It's a failure, in the fact that it never really addressed the problems in the banking sector, the US really has not dealt with this, the economy is still slow, unemployment hasn't changed much. If you're suggesting that we in the UK should attempt an Obama style stimulus, I don't think it's practical or possible for us. I remember the arguments at the time, and it was touted as a 'solution' it wasn't a solution and didn't turn out to be.
We get the same retarded arguments against stimulus here as well.
The argument seems to run thus,
The patient who was repeatedly shot but is still alive couldnt have been saved by first aid and the skill and hard work of the hospital because he was much better before he was shot.
The argument seems to run thus,
The patient who was repeatedly shot but is still alive couldnt have been saved by first aid and the skill and hard work of the hospital because he was much better before he was shot.
A better analogy is that the better not to give the patient an addictive drug which has severe adverse-effects, because inevitably he will be back for more treatment, and more drugs, until eventually, the drug has to be stopped altogether because its killing the patient, or the patient dies from all the compounding adverse-effects.
No. It really isn't.
And certainly not in the case of Australia where a modest and manageable stimulus has helped us avoid a recession.
And certainly not in the case of Australia where a modest and manageable stimulus has helped us avoid a recession.
Villaraigosa is an impressive speaker, not exactly barnstorming but he has a natural charm.
He did have a shot at Governor but I think that may have gone now.
Cooper was leading a group of people talking about the President and his 'promises' a few minutes ago. There was some good back-and-forth between two others on the platform, one clearly a right winger (or taking the stance of one) and the other arguing against him. Some good points from both but the liberal guy nailed him a couple times.
Eh? In Europe most countries have embarked on austerity programmes.
The stimulus in America has resulted in crippling, er... negative real interest rates. Investors are paying them to hold US debt.
Jaz said:
You're failing to distinguish an economic theory from the policy decisions of particular governments. If you think stimulus doesn't work, then you need to make that argument - an argument contradicting the established tenets of macroeconomics - on its own merits, not based on the failure of politicians to implement the policies recommended by the theory.
Why? And why are we in a sovereign debt crisis, rather than victims of a banking crash and a burst property bubble? Japan has debt at over 200% of GDP and isn't in crisis. (Not that I'm saying that's a great idea, you understand.)
Stimulus in itself isn't supposed to reduce the long-term debt burden. But reducing wasteful spare capacity in the economy and creating demand leads to growth, which, perhaps along with a little helpful inflation, will reduce the debt.
What's addressing the failures of the banking sector got to do with Keynesian stimulus?
Of course, Keynesians were tearing their hair out that it was too small, and predicted that its effects would be moderate. But that was all Obama could get through at the time. Doesn't change the accuracy of the theory.
Jaz said:
There certainly is in yours
Doing a bit of reading on him I can see he has had some problems. What's his next destination after being mayor then?
That's about it. I think being a state assemblyman or senator would be a step down. He could go for congress, but that isn't much of an office either. I'm pretty sure Newsome is positioned to be the following act for Jerry Brown and he'd be hard to beat in a primary.
Well he lives in Los Angeles, so probably Dancing With the Stars.
Northern California Democrats have an advantage in statewide primaries because despite the larger population of Southern California, Northern California (the Bay Area especially) is so massively Democratic, that it's nearly as big a bulwark, and it's quite a bit cheaper to buy ad time in the Bay Area then in the LA market.
Romney and his super-pacs seem to be pulling out of PA and MI.
Makes sense, he's got no chance there, it's just chucking money away.
Makes sense, he's got no chance there, it's just chucking money away.
'kin Foo Fighters, cool.
Playing My Hero, even more cool.
Playing My Hero, even more cool.
Taylor Hicks or the Foo Fighters......hmmmmm close call. 
When I've seen Newsome, and I must admit it's probably mostly on Bill Maher, I'm not entirely sure about him.
Haha depressing but true.
Should have played 'this is a call'
Foo Fighters, feck yea.
They sounded a bit shit but still pretty cool.
I saw them live a few weeks ago, best live band I've ever seen!
But yeah, they didn't sound as good there.
EDIT: They played a gig that lasted 4 hours last night so that's probably why.
I'm not really a fan...he seems to be more style than substance. But he is smart and very good at speaking and presenting his views. I think a lot of the CA dem party are actually putting a lot into making Kamala Harris a national name....I'd watch her career with interest.
That's a bad sign. Mittens' chances have been dive-bombing on 538.
Mitt's predicted Electoral vote count, that I managed to block, is 226.8.
feck me this speaker is painful.
Have seen plenty of Newsom. He's a bit of a mixed bag. He had this weird playboy image with his coiffed hair and his TV girlfriend despite apparently being a massive workaholic. Might have a case of Clinton syndrome, as he got caught schtupping the wife of his campaign manager. Still don't know whether his big reach on gay marriage (when it was illegal at the time, he ordered the SF city-county clerk to issue marriage licenses to gay couples) was genuine activism or just a clever spot of grandstanding.
He'd planned to run for Governor before it was apparent Brown was going to kick everyone's ass and he went for the Lieutenant Governor's job as well. Personally, I think the Governor's job is a bit of a poison pill right now, and suspect Newsom might have his eyes on a Senate seat once Feinstein or Boxer gives up the ghost.
The left is a big fan of Kamala. I think she's maybe a bit too liberal for a national stage, though.
I must admit to really becoming a fan of Al Sharpton over the last few months. I used to think he was a race-baiting buffoon but he's actually very smart and has a way of laying out policy analysis in simplified terms. He has a wicked sense of humour too.
- Status