Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

2012 Presidential Election Part II -- Charlotte, a National Treasure or sede vacante

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part II -- Charlotte, a National Treasure or sede vaca

    Originally posted by FreshFish View Post
    Obamanomics seems empirically to have been disproven; here are some academic considerations why that is so:

    I guess the laws of economics have been rescinded and so none of this matters as long as our hearts are pure and our intentions are noble?
    Here's the issue with even this side of the thread: it only focuses on how to distribute wealth. What is sorely missed by all of these arguments is what to do with this wealth once these entities have it, regardless of how it is obtained. Perhaps we need to look at how it is being spent, not how it is being earned.

    Let's take a group of people we'll call "overnight millionaires". These are the people that win the lottery, are majorly successful on a game show, or meet up with a fortunate gift (whether it's a philanthropist or an inheritance). What are they actually doing with the money? Sadly, a large percentage of them (and this does NOT mean 100%) are over-splurging. They're not being productive and bettering themselves. They think it has to be spent right away, so they get lavish vehicles, large mansions, hundred dollar steak dinners, you name it. There's no actual plan; instead, there's greed. Heck, recent administrations have fallen into the same bear trap. When the debt ceiling was raised a while back, what was the first thing the Obama administration did? They tacked on new spending.

    Now, let's take a look at some of the most fiscally conservative, yet not necessarily very rich, people. What are they doing with their money? Well, most of them are shopping at Goodwill or discount food chains. They drive lower priced, efficient vehicles. They aren't necessarily buying the newest piece of technology once it comes out, or the hottest brand name. They live in apartments or modest houses. They're making risk-conscious investments that yield them returns expected based upon the risk they take. They also look to take the best possible advantage they can of any situation that arises before them. This is exactly what the companies that FreshFish mentioned are doing.

    Now is not the time to ask how the money will be bequeathed upon you; now is the time to ask what you can do to create a higher standard of living.

    Comment


    • Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part II -- Charlotte, a National Treasure or sede vaca

      Originally posted by FlagDUDE08 View Post
      Here's the issue with even this side of the thread: it only focuses on how to distribute wealth. What is sorely missed by all of these arguments is what to do with this wealth once these entities have it, regardless of how it is obtained.
      I think both of those statements miss the essential point: how to put the most people into a position in which they can create wealth. That's why opportunity is so important. We don't want to just shave down the bumps to fill in the ruts. We want to give the greatest number of people the resources where they can then use their own genius to think up and execute the next world-changing ideas.

      If you shrink the pool of discoverers, capital has nothing worthwhile to invest in. That's why inequality, aside from all the moral considerations, is inefficient.
      Cornell University
      National Champion 1967, 1970
      ECAC Champion 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1973, 1980, 1986, 1996, 1997, 2003, 2005, 2010
      Ivy League Champion 1966, 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1977, 1978, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1996, 1997, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2012, 2014, 2018, 2019, 2020

      Comment


      • Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part II -- Charlotte, a National Treasure or sede vaca

        Originally posted by Kepler View Post
        Although these arguments about the 99% and the 47% and the 1% could get ugly, it's good that we are finally having them. Income and class are at the heart of American domestic policies and we have rarely faced that as a country. We may finally be starting to. That's a lot healthier than elites gaming the system in the dark.

        The more people truly understand about the way our fiscal policies work, the more they can make intelligent decisions at the polls. Since both sides sincerely believe their conclusions are the intelligent ones, both sides should welcome the end to opaqueness.
        You are quite the optimist today.
        Originally posted by Priceless
        Good to see you're so reasonable.
        Originally posted by ScoobyDoo
        Very well, said.
        Originally posted by Rover
        A fair assessment Bob.

        Comment


        • Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part II -- Charlotte, a National Treasure or sede vaca

          Originally posted by Bob Gray View Post
          You are quite the optimist today.
          It's my manic phase.

          Just wait.
          Cornell University
          National Champion 1967, 1970
          ECAC Champion 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1973, 1980, 1986, 1996, 1997, 2003, 2005, 2010
          Ivy League Champion 1966, 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1977, 1978, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1996, 1997, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2012, 2014, 2018, 2019, 2020

          Comment


          • Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part II -- Charlotte, a National Treasure or sede vaca

            Originally posted by Kepler View Post
            I think both of those statements miss the essential point: how to put the most people into a position in which they can create wealth. That's why opportunity is so important. We don't want to just shave down the bumps to fill in the ruts. We want to give the greatest number of people the resources where they can then use their own genius to think up and execute the next world-changing ideas.

            If you shrink the pool of discoverers, capital has nothing worthwhile to invest in. That's why inequality, aside from all the moral considerations, is inefficient.
            The key word in this post is execute.

            Let me just ask a general question, but I think you know where I'm going with this: Do you ever watch "Shark Tank" on ABC?

            Comment


            • Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part II -- Charlotte, a National Treasure or sede vaca

              Originally posted by FlagDUDE08 View Post
              The key word in this post is execute.

              Let me just ask a general question, but I think you know where I'm going with this: Do you ever watch "Shark Tank" on ABC?
              I used to watch the Canuck version.
              Cornell University
              National Champion 1967, 1970
              ECAC Champion 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1973, 1980, 1986, 1996, 1997, 2003, 2005, 2010
              Ivy League Champion 1966, 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1977, 1978, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1996, 1997, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2012, 2014, 2018, 2019, 2020

              Comment


              • Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part II -- Charlotte, a National Treasure or sede vaca

                Obama +8 among small business owners.

                The wheels continue to fall off for the RNC.

                NC-11 Republican candidate: I'm here for everyone in my district.

                Incumbent NV Republican Senator: I don't view the world like Romney.

                Incumbent MA Republican Senator: I don't view the world like Romney, either. Do these pants make me look fat?

                CT Republican Senator Candidate: I disagree with Romney's insinuation.
                Last edited by Kepler; 09-19-2012, 12:34 PM.
                Cornell University
                National Champion 1967, 1970
                ECAC Champion 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1973, 1980, 1986, 1996, 1997, 2003, 2005, 2010
                Ivy League Champion 1966, 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1977, 1978, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1996, 1997, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2012, 2014, 2018, 2019, 2020

                Comment


                • Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part II -- Charlotte, a National Treasure or sede vaca

                  Originally posted by Bob Gray View Post
                  Obamanomics is very simple. Spend as much as you can as fast as you can to juice the economy enough to get elected again. That's it. You take away his juicing the economy a dozen ways from Sunday and his chance of getting reelected would be nearly nil (it wouldn't be nil because Romney is a weak candidate himself). But such nuances generally escape the voting public.
                  Actually most economists agree that when times are tough the government should spend more and when times are good the government should spend less. Seems fairly straightforward to me.

                  The main problem we have right now is all the government spending in the world is not masking how bad the economy was in 2008 and how bad it continues to be.

                  Want the truth?

                  http://www.gfmag.com/latestnews/late...sid=1.474984E7

                  Romney's plan is worse. It's basically GW's. Tax cuts and more spending. Much worse than Obama. At least Obama is trying to get more revenue to pay for his spending.
                  **NOTE: The misleading post above was brought to you by Reynold's Wrap and American Steeples, makers of Crosses.

                  Originally Posted by dropthatpuck-Scooby's a lost cause.
                  Originally Posted by First Time, Long Time-Always knew you were nothing but a troll.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Kepler View Post
                    Obama +8 among small business owners.

                    The wheels continue to fall off for the RNC.

                    NC-11 Republican candidate: I'm here for everyone in my district.

                    Incumbent NV Republican Senator: I don't view the world like Romney.

                    Incumbent MA Republican Senator: I don't view the world like Romney, either. Do these pants make me look fat?

                    CT Republican Senator Candidate: I disagree with Romney's insinuation.
                    CT and MA candidates comments aren't too surprising as the Mittwit will get creamed in both states, so McMahon and Brown are pulling a CYA. No points off for that.

                    Nevada interests me. In a supposed swing state that's a tossup and all that nonsense (even though I'm not sure a poll exists that's shown him in the lead over there) why would a sitting Senator in a tough race through his party's candidate under a bus? Maybe he's got some internal polling that shows Nevada isn't going to be that close after all (and I'm not sure either party is advertising there).
                    Legally drunk???? If its "legal", what's the ------- problem?!? - George Carlin

                    Ever notice how everybody who drives slower than you is an idiot, and everybody who drives faster is a maniac? - George Carlin

                    "I've never seen so much reason and bullsh*t contained in ONE MAN."

                    Comment


                    • Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part II -- Charlotte, a National Treasure or sede vaca

                      Originally posted by Rover View Post
                      The notion that "rich", "wealthy", "job creators", however else you want to term them will invest to grow the economy is a juvenile analysis no matter how many letters one puts after their name. People with money are going to invest that money where they can get the highest return.
                      and what is the difference between those two? It sure reads like you are contradicting yourself here.

                      The whole idea is that if you put money to its most productive use, most people generally will all be better off than otherwise. The whole theory which has ample empirical justification is that it is not the role of business owners to invest and grow "the economy"; it is merely the role of business owners to invest and grow their own individual businesses. Saying Keynesian multipliers have been discredited says nothing about "trickle down" at all; they are two very different discussiions; though that seems to have eluded your comprehension.

                      Are you saying you don't want money put to its most productive use, that squandering it and wasting it is okay with you?


                      it is highly unusual for government ever to put money to its most productive use; we settle for having the government perform essential functions, and it's reasonable to debate what's "essential" and what isn't. Basic R & D is often useful; for example, and one can make a reasonable case that government spending on basic R & D both can address market failures and also provide seeds that others can take and grow into plants. However, commericalization of basic R & D is almost never done effectively by government.


                      I know nuance is hard for your sledgehammer approach to things, but please don't throw in addendums that never were included in the original and then rail against the addendums as if that somehow is a response to the original.
                      "Hope is a good thing; maybe the best of things."

                      "Beer is a sign that God loves us and wants us to be happy." -- Benjamin Franklin

                      "Being Irish, he had an abiding sense of tragedy, which sustained him through temporary periods of joy." -- W. B. Yeats

                      "People generally are most impatient with those flaws in others about which they are most ashamed of in themselves." - folk wisdom

                      Comment


                      • Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part II -- Charlotte, a National Treasure or sede vaca

                        Details on Presidential debates announced:

                        http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2012/0...ntial-debates/
                        "Hope is a good thing; maybe the best of things."

                        "Beer is a sign that God loves us and wants us to be happy." -- Benjamin Franklin

                        "Being Irish, he had an abiding sense of tragedy, which sustained him through temporary periods of joy." -- W. B. Yeats

                        "People generally are most impatient with those flaws in others about which they are most ashamed of in themselves." - folk wisdom

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by FreshFish View Post
                          and what is the difference between those two? It sure reads like you are contradicting yourself here.

                          The whole idea is that if you put money to its most productive use, most people generally will all be better off than otherwise. The whole theory which has ample empirical justification is that it is not the role of business owners to invest and grow "the economy"; it is merely the role of business owners to invest and grow their own individual businesses. Saying Keynesian multipliers have been discredited says nothing about "trickle down" at all; they are two very different discussiions; though that seems to have eluded your comprehension.

                          Are you saying you don't want money put to its most productive use, that squandering it and wasting it is okay with you?


                          it is highly unusual for government ever to put money to its most productive use; we settle for having the government perform essential functions, and it's reasonable to debate what's "essential" and what isn't. Basic R & D is often useful; for example, and one can make a reasonable case that government spending on basic R & D both can address market failures and also provide seeds that others can take and grow into plants. However, commericalization of basic R & D is almost never done effectively by government.


                          I know nuance is hard for your sledgehammer approach to things, but please don't throw in addendums that never were included in the original and then rail against the addendums as if that somehow is a response to the original.
                          I'll repeat for your benefit. The notion that we need to borrow money to give tax cuts to the wealthy in this country because they'll invest it back into the economy is a fool's errand. The crack analysis you quoted either conveniently or stupidly does not address the fact that wealthy people will take a good portion of that money and invest it overseas. Job creation in China does the US little good. Why should we use US tax dollars to in effect subsidize such an enterprise? It makes no sense. If your argument is "private business can handle money better than the gubmint" - sure. The problem is unlike the gubmint private business does not work for the citizens of the United States, so you can't expect them to do what's best for this country. Unless you could guarantee big business and wealthy individuals would invest this tax break windfall in the US (and I'm not advocating that) the whole notion is a failed, moldy, out of date policy that we tried during the Bush era and it failed miserably. Tell me Fishy, where was all the job creation from 2002 (when tax cuts passed) to 2009???
                          Legally drunk???? If its "legal", what's the ------- problem?!? - George Carlin

                          Ever notice how everybody who drives slower than you is an idiot, and everybody who drives faster is a maniac? - George Carlin

                          "I've never seen so much reason and bullsh*t contained in ONE MAN."

                          Comment


                          • Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part II -- Charlotte, a National Treasure or sede vaca

                            Originally posted by FreshFish View Post
                            it is highly unusual for government ever to put money to its most productive use; we settle for having the government perform essential functions, and it's reasonable to debate what's "essential" and what isn't..
                            And exactly what productive use is Romney's Cayman or Swiss Bank Account money doing? Or the Trillions of dollars that US Corporations are sitting on?

                            I rest my case.
                            **NOTE: The misleading post above was brought to you by Reynold's Wrap and American Steeples, makers of Crosses.

                            Originally Posted by dropthatpuck-Scooby's a lost cause.
                            Originally Posted by First Time, Long Time-Always knew you were nothing but a troll.

                            Comment


                            • Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part II -- Charlotte, a National Treasure or sede vaca

                              Originally posted by Rover View Post
                              The notion that we need to borrow money to give tax cuts to the wealthy in this country because they'll invest it back into the economy is a fool's errand.
                              so what? I've never proposed that.
                              "Hope is a good thing; maybe the best of things."

                              "Beer is a sign that God loves us and wants us to be happy." -- Benjamin Franklin

                              "Being Irish, he had an abiding sense of tragedy, which sustained him through temporary periods of joy." -- W. B. Yeats

                              "People generally are most impatient with those flaws in others about which they are most ashamed of in themselves." - folk wisdom

                              Comment


                              • Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part II -- Charlotte, a National Treasure or sede vaca

                                Originally posted by Rover View Post
                                I'll repeat for your benefit. The notion that we need to borrow money to give tax cuts to the wealthy in this country because they'll invest it back into the economy is a fool's errand. The crack analysis you quoted either conveniently or stupidly does not address the fact that wealthy people will take a good portion of that money and invest it overseas. Job creation in China does the US little good. Why should we use US tax dollars to in effect subsidize such an enterprise? It makes no sense. If your argument is "private business can handle money better than the gubmint" - sure. The problem is unlike the gubmint private business does not work for the citizens of the United States, so you can't expect them to do what's best for this country. Unless you could guarantee big business and wealthy individuals would invest this tax break windfall in the US (and I'm not advocating that) the whole notion is a failed, moldy, out of date policy that we tried during the Bush era and it failed miserably. Tell me Fishy, where was all the job creation from 2002 (when tax cuts passed) to 2009???
                                And why do you think that happens that production goes overseas? Perhaps the "gubmint", as you put it, needs to look into why this is happening, and adjust based upon that. Oh, I'll tell you why: labour. Remember that it is the people selling the companies labour, not the other way around. Perhaps we need to give a more competitive price. Do away with minimum wage and outlandish union requirements that price us out of that market.

                                Use your head to think, not your heart.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X