This afternoon, after a round of phone calls and face to face contacts, I sat down, prior to going to the Carver County Fair for my 3 hour tour in the booth, to catch up on the news of the past few days. I was reading the UK Telegraph and stumbled across this article: The Stunning Decline of Barack Obama: 10 Key Reasons Why the Obama Presidency is in Meltdown (http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/nilegardiner/100050412/the-stunning-decline-of-barack-obama-10-key-reasons-why-the-obama-presidency-is-in-meltdown/). I understand that many that read the blog have railed against me as I have put Obama under the microscope but rest assured if/when Republicans regain control of Congress and/or the White House my venom for them will be just as harsh if they do not follow fiscal conservative roads.
The 10 reasons given by Nile Gardiner are:
- The Obama presidency is out of touch with American people.
- Most Americans don't have the confidence in the president's leadership.
- Obama fails to inspire
- The United States is drowning in debt
- Obama's Big Government message is falling flat
- Obama's support for socialized health care is a huge political mistake
- Obama's handling of the Gulf oil spill has been weak-kneed and indecisive
- US foreign policy is an embarrassing mess under the Obama administration.
- President Obama is muddled and confused on national security.
- Obama doesn't believe in American greatness.
Mr. Gardiner offers examples for each one to defend his opinion. I do agree that the plethora of vacations for the First Family is stained with an arrogant thought of entitlement. Not because they are taking the vacations rather to which locales they are going. Right now we have a Gulf region that is reeling from "the worst oil spill in US history" (which can be argued it was not) and instead of spending a significant amount of time vacationing there they choose more ritzy locales like Spain. I know the First Family will spend about 28 hours in the Gulf "vacationing". Can one really vacation for 28 hours?
While I agree with Mr. Gardiner that Obama's handling of the Gulf was pathetic, he did manage to extort a slush fund from BP so I don't see how that is completely weak-kneed. The Stimulus package and other items pushed forth by the White House under the banner of Big Government is a failure. The two benchmarks set forth by the Obama administration during the Stimulus push was that unemployment will not surpass 8% and it would create over 3 million jobs; neither of which happened. We were all warned of Obama's short-comings on foreign policy which was a motivating factor of putting Biden on the ticket. Even with Biden as VP the foreign policy has consisted of apologies and expansion of wars efforts.
I look forward to see how historians compare Carter to Obama as Obama is destined to be a one-term President. Obama may get saved though if Republicans take back Congress and prop up Obama as they did with Clinton. No matter which side of the aisle or fence one finds themselves on the reason given above are worth considering and discussing as we assess the policies of Obama.
What would you have liked to see on foreign policy?
ReplyDeleteMy take is that he's had to focus domestically, which he has done. He called for a troop withdrawal in Iraq. The situation in Afghanistan was worse than most of us realized. He increased troops there in order to stablize the area and to reduce the troops later, without having to send them back. He's opened relations with the other world powers, including China and Russia. Engaged in talks to reduce nuclear weapons. Stopped torturing enemy combatants. Engaged Muslim leaders. Improved relations with Cuba.
Given what Bush did to our foreign relations and adapting an isolationist approach, Obama has had to lay the groundwork to rebuild relations. It's a marathon, not a sprint.
What would you have done?
Oh, and my understanding of the Spain trip was that the first lady was asked to go on the trip with a longtime friend and that it was the Service that picked the hotel due to security concerns, not Obama.
ReplyDeleteWhat was so patehtic about the Gulf? How has he shown he doesn't believe in America's greatness? And what has been so confusing about national security?
While I'm no supporter of Obama, here's my issues with these statements:
ReplyDeleteThey are issues ss defined by whom? The problem with these statements is that in today's political climate for Obama to be "in touch" with the american people, he should have to manage by poll. And then he'd be critisized for that. It's a no win.
Those that don't have confidence have no confidence because he is a democrat, not because of who he is. The problem is the polarization of our politics. Something I think this blog does nothing to fight.
Those that believe we are drowning in debt (we are) don't offer options that are viable. It's easy to critisize without solutions.
So does he increase taxes and cut spending to shrink the deficit or does he decrease taxes and increase spending to grow the economy? That's a wonderfull no-win situation. Either way has political prices to be paid.
He's damned either way he goes. If he shrinks government he shrinks the economy and reduces tax receipts. That increases the debt. If he increases government he's seen as a socialist. I can't wait for a republican to take office and face this same dilemma.
I guess what I'm saying is that this is utter BS and anyone who is objective would know that. Seriously, do you post this stuff to be inflamatory?
You talk about being against the polarization in our country then post topics about revolution and how un-american the president is.
"Plethora of vacations"? How many make a "plethora"?
ReplyDeleteBut wait, it's not the vacations they are taking, rather the "locales". Such as?
How long of a vacation should the President take in the Gulf region?
"Extort a slush fund." Is that a compliment?
So if Obama succeeds, the only reason for it would be a Congress controlled by Republicans. In other words, all of the blame but none of the credit.
No need to discuss or assess; your mind is made up.
Oh, one other thing.
ReplyDeleteI'm glad to see that you finally came out and confessed your political leanings. How so? Well, you said that the only time you'd hold anyone or any Republicans accountable was if they did "not follow fiscal CONSERVATIVE roads". In other words, Obama doesn't stand a chance in your book. Why not just hang it up then until 2013 or 2017? You've proven that you can't come up with anything original.
Given your "pletora" fox news based factually incorrect (or just plain factless) statements above, I find it necessary to povide some balance for the sake of honesty.
ReplyDeleteVacation:
Obama spent 26 days on vacation during Yr 1 of his presidency. By comparison:
Reagan – 42 days
GW Bush – 77 days
GHW Bush – 40 days
Carter – 19 days
Clinton – 21 days
Stimulus:
So, because the Stimulus talking points weren’t delivered it was a failure? Instead of proving your own ignorance, please cite 5 metrics that the stimulus not only didn't improve but actually got worse because of it? If it was a failure, 5 should be a very easy number of indicators to come up with?
Foreign Policy:
http://www.nsnetwork.org/node/1281
So those 100 initiatives are just apologies and expansion of war efforts?
1 Term presidency:
That’s a bold statement. I could agree if I didn’t already have a good idea who the Republican presidential candidates were. The Republicans are painting themselves into an ideological corner. They’re no more popular than democrats (31% vs 32% for popularity currently). Their candidate will likely have to take an extreme position at the convention to appease the base in order to get nominated which means that they will further isolate themselves from the mainstream (middle).
You can’t get elected without the middle.
That means, in the lesser of two evils decision, people may opt for Obama. Where does that leave you with such a bold statement like you made? Nevermind, I’ll tell you – it leaves you miserable and bitter for another 4 years. And if republicans move down that road, it will only isolate them further.
How exactly do you expect to get people to respond when you color your blog with inaccurate or blatantly false statements coupled with highly biased and opinionated statements? How does that drive interaction with your readers other than to aggravate them?
"Well, you said that the only time you'd hold anyone or any Republicans accountable was if they did "not follow fiscal CONSERVATIVE roads". "
ReplyDeleteBut Clark, in another discussion he also stated that they are ONLY accountable IF they have control. Until they have control, he CANNOT hold them accountable.
What a steaming pile of unprincipled BS, IMO.
One can definitely vacation in 28 hours. The funny thing is, if he takes a longer one, then he gets heat for not doing his job when things are so bad and for pandering for votes and trying to capitalize on the oil leak.
ReplyDeleteDo you doubt that the oil leak was that bad? Sure, it might not be as bad as Exxon, but wasn't it still bad? Or do you just not buy it all?
What would you have liked to see on foreign policy?
ReplyDeleteBefore Bush left office he laid the plan to leave Iraq that Obama is taking credit for sticking with. A plan was also hatched for Afghanistan that recently has been switched by the changing of the guard. The change in Generals now puts a likable face on the Afghanistan War and is laying the groundwork for a new timetable. Don't be surprised if there is no significant draw down in troops next July (see the General's interview over the weekend).
Now, as for foreign policy. I would not have gone on an apology tour nor would have made the PR gaffe's Obama made. We are not an arrogant country. We are the police of the world because people expected that after we saved Europe, and World, from Fascism and Imperialism. An article was in the Star Tribune about the increase clandestine activity that was come to light under Obama. I agree we need intelligence gathering on our enemies.
At the same time, we need to draw back our troop and base presence around the globe. We need to secure our borders first and use light infantry and special forces to fight our enemies. When a country is in need, we offer our services for a fee. That fee can come in several manners - money, forgiveness of debt, mineral rights, etc.
We gaffed with Russia and has done very little to extend relations with China past what individual states, i.e. Minnesota, have done to assist business. Obama may have stopped waterboarding but torture has just been re-define. I thought Gitmo was suppose to be closed last December?
Bush did a lot for Africa. Especially in the humanitarian aide for developing AIDS awareness. In the end, we need to worry more about America and less about other countries. We cannot afford to hand out $500 Million anymore.
The Spanish trip was originally billed for the kids. It was only after be lambasted by the foreign press that it came out she was taking time to be with a longtime friend who was grieving over the loss of her Gyno's father-in-law(or father). As for the Gulf, he should have vacationed there instead of the $50,000 a day Martha's Vineyard site.
ReplyDeleteIf we like it or not it is about optics. Plus, it would have helped out the area a lot more than it will help Martha's Vineyard.
Right now Republicans cannot get amendments or bills to the floor of Congress because Democrat leaders are blocking them. When I had the free time to watch CSPAN coverage of the health care bill one overriding theme existed in committee and on the floor - any amendment offered by Republicans were ignored or voted down.
ReplyDeleteWhen Obama orchestrated the Health Care Summit, he did very little listening. Once both sides realized it was a "dog and pony" show they all attempted to grandstand. As for the debt, solutions have been offered and even Obama told Congress, "do not send me a bill that isn't paid for." Well, that lasted a week. Obama has run up a tab greater than all other Presidencies combined since taking office.
Government spending will not grow the economy. We need to energize the private sector. We need to revamp the tax system. We need to go to a flat tax and eliminate all tax credits. As we implement the new tax system, we also add a Constitutional Amendment to require Congress to balance the budget.
We need a smaller government and that can be done without an affect on the economy. I post my original blog entry to be the catalyst of the conversation. I recognize that, at times, my original entry is a polarized view of the topic. If I worked from the middle would we really have a conversation?
I do hold Republicans accountable now. As I said before, Republicans struggle to get bills and amendments to the floor because Democrats block them.
ReplyDeleteThe oil leak got over hyped. The type of oil in Exxon's deal was refined, the oil with BP was raw. I know I learned a lot about the difference and how raw oil is broken down naturally. Not to mention Mother Earth releasing raw oil into the waters all the time, granted not at the rate the BP well was but still does.
ReplyDeleteThat is why we don't hear a lot of front page media anymore about the oil and it has moved onto other elements of it because it was not the big natural disaster all pegged it to be.
I agree that the polarization discussion needs to stop but, as Viper stated, he does blog from there to start the conversation. Now, as he claims, it may not be his viewpoint but I will give Viper this - most of his blogs does bring out the opposite polar view. The only trouble I see though is the opposite and Viper's original take dig in because no ground is given so a middle cannot be achieved.
ReplyDeleteThe trip was billed for the kids when only one went?
ReplyDeleteSo now the oil spill wasn't a big deal? Two months ago you said they weren't doing enough. Either he can't win or you didn't know what you were talking about then. Which is fine for most of us, but we don't have a blog that bashed him.
Maybe a good thing they didn't burn all that oil you wanted them to?
Where to begin?
ReplyDelete"We are not an arrogant country."
So, as an example, the Iranians hating us for the last 40 years because we overthrew their democratically elected government and installed a dictator (the shah) and then we talk down to them about what they can and cannot do as a country isn't arrogant? If a country told the USA we couldn't have nuclear power (civilian or military) would we sit idly by and accept it? Or would we consider that arrogant by the country telling us? Especially if they already have those things. That's just 1 example, I can come up with hundreds. That's not apologistic, but blowback is the consequence of meddling.
"Before Bush left office he laid the plan to leave Iraq that Obama is taking credit for sticking with."
Before Bush left office he laid out the plan to save the economy through bailouts that now Obama is left holding the political bag for with deficits and lower than expected economic improvement.
IE - that knife cuts both ways. Want a kleenex to wipe away those tears?
"At the same time, we need to draw back our troop and base presence around the globe. We need to secure our borders first and use light infantry and special forces to fight our enemies."
I'll wager you've never served in the military so I'm not sure there's any point in noting the absolute lack of understanding you show with this statement.
"I do hold Republicans accountable now. As I said before, Republicans struggle to get bills and amendments to the floor because Democrats block them."
So you are saying because they can't get legislation passed, they have no responsibility to show principles? So because they aren't in power, their hypocritic stances on the constitution and strict interpretation thereof shouldn't count? Once they're in power they'll develop a spine right? Yeah, sure.
"Well, that lasted a week. Obama has run up a tab greater than all other Presidencies combined since taking office."
And an honest objective man would point out that this is largely due to reduced tax receipts due to a smaller economy - not due to spending. Are you an honest objective man, or are you being intentionally disingenuous?
"Bush did a lot for Africa. Especially in the humanitarian aide for developing AIDS awareness. In the end, we need to worry more about America and less about other countries. We cannot afford to hand out $500 Million anymore."
I saved this for last on purpose becuase it goes to the crux of your argument (or lack thereof).
We are the richest, most powerful nation in the world. Are you seriously saying that we cannot afford to help those less fortunate with 500M in tax dollars? Are you really that selfish?
I know you're a christian. My question is, what would jesus say to you for this comment? Wouldn't he point out your arrogance, selfishness and pitiful egocentrism?
Now that I've answered your points, let's go back to mine.
ReplyDeletePlease cite 5 metrics that show that the stimulus did NOT improve the economic situation? Your statement implies that even with the roughly 2 trillion in stimulus spending, we saw no benefit. Unemployment fell to where it would have had we not spent. Business losses were as bad as they would have been had we not spent.
So if you assert that the the stimulus was a failure, an opinion of yours not supported by even conservative economists, then you likely have some proof to support that claim right?
I mean, it's not possible that you are regurgitatint Rush/Glenn et al are you?
Viper, still waiting.
ReplyDeletePlethora of vacations? Or did you give up on that point after "Viper Fact Checker's" contribution?
What about the "locales"? Silent on that too?
Did Bush ever vacation in the Gulf after Katrina?
What are the "PR gaffes Obama made"? A bow or two? Kind of like Bush locking hands with Saudi royalty?
What was "gaffed with Russia"?
You honestly believe that MN has done more to extend relations with China than the US as a whole? Of course you do; we have a Republican governor.
Did you ever stop to consider the fact that many Republican amendments to the health care law were obstructionist tactics that had absolutely no value other than to delay passage and create sound bite fodder?
Two problems with this blog:
1) It's author starts on one extreme and never waivers. It is a world of absolutes in which there is no middle ground, no gray area, no nuanced discussion whatsoever. There are more declarative statements than honest questions. The middle is where interesting discussion happens; where people who don't cling on to an extereme ideology come together and explore new ideas and step back for a moment to consider opinions that may not have been completely obvious.
2) There is not a drop of humility in the author's body. Never before have I encountered a person so willfully ignorant of their own limitations. Unfortunately the Ardent Viper doesn't get this. He goes on and on about everything from civil rights to racism to tax law to constitutional law to foreign policy to local politics to American history to any other number of topics all the while declaring what is and what is not. No apologies; no admissions of fault; no humility.
You're not the genius you think you are Chris. I know. And I also know that my words won't have any impact on you. They never do.
Anonymous
ReplyDeleteThe original trip to Spain was put forth as a vacation that Michelle wanted to take with the kids before school started. As I said, it wasn't until after the foreign press lambasted Michelle that the reason for the trip changed.
I am not saying the oil spill is not a big deal. I will admit I bought the hype that the oil spill may be the worst in our history. And yes, if the spill was to be as bad as the White House and Green groups were saying then we needed a more aggressive attack on the spill that didn't take place. Now, we have been educated that the oil spilled in the Gulf is much different than the oil spilled in Valdez. Do we have agreement on that?
The burning of that oil would have lessen the chance of tar balls but environmentalist were worried about air pollution. There are times when we need to way, as we do every four years for President, the lesser of two evils. Do we risk air pollution or do we allow the oil tar balls float to the shores? The White House choose the tar balls.
"Plethora of vacations? Or did you give up on that point after "Viper Fact Checker's" contribution?"
ReplyDeleteDon't bother Clark, I never get answers to the tough questions.
"I will admit I bought the hype that the oil spill may be the worst in our history."
Statistically speaking this WAS the worst spill in history, with the single largest amount of oil spilled into the ocean at any time in history.
And we have no idea what the long term effects of this spill are. They may be minimal, and I hope that's the case. But to say it was a non-event simply because we can't find most of the oil any longer would seem premature.
Truman
ReplyDeleteWhen the world turns to America to be the police or final arbiter time after time, a certain level of arrogance will creep in but to lambaste the entire foreign policy as arrogant is reckless. We are giving up our Nuclear power - civil and military - by keeping the moratorium in place of no new nuclear power plants and the nuclear arms reduction treaty with Russia.
I agree that Bush signed into law TARP, which Democrats passed in Congress, but the White House reports that money is being paid back ahead of schedule. The trouble is that Obama extended TARP to the automotive industry and said we needed a stimulus package to get America out of the recession. I have been critical of TARP as I do not think the Government is to pick winners and losers. If a company makes bad business decisions then allow them to fail or declare bankruptcy.
You are correct that I am not former military. That still does not mean I lack understanding that base presence has on the view that America is an Imperial Country.
There are many Republicans in Congress that will not gain a spine for conservative or constitutional stance. The trouble is that when amendments are made, i.e. tort reform, they are discounted.
"And an honest objective man would point out that this is largely due to reduced tax receipts due to a smaller economy - not due to spending. Are you an honest objective man, or are you being intentionally disingenuous?"
I am the one being disingenuous? Please. Just because tax receipts are lower does not mean we increase spending. You argument would carry water if the spending was at previous year levels but that is not the case here. Why can we not hold Obama accountable for his pledge of not signing a bill that is not paid for?
Yes we are the richest most powerful nation but we are also experiencing a recession with many Americans out of work. Why are giving money to other countries when our own citizens suffer? I do not mean we need to extend UE benefits; rather why are we not giving businesses incentives to keep business here?
Truman
ReplyDeleteThe moniker pushed as the worst oil spill in history was geared toward the impact on the eco-system. Don't take my comments to mean that the spill has no impact or a "non-event". I acknowledge, all throughout, that an impact of the spill will be there. Let's be honest though, the "sky is falling" attitude in the beginning was overblown.
Why don't you or anyone else here acknowledge the oil spilled in the Gulf and in Valdez is different and Mother Nature has the ability to deal with the Gulf spill naturally?
We don't know how nature will deal with it. We don't know the long term impact on the ecosystem. We don't know if sealife has permanently left the area and, if so, the impact on commercial fishing.
ReplyDeleteIt's pretty easy to make your claims of overblown looking back on it without regard for what you don't know of the future impact. What would your reaction have been if BP said "don't worry, this will take care of itself."? How the hell else were they suppose to respond? To sit here today and look back and say it was overblown is BS.
And I think the world turns to us to be the police of it a lot less then we decide to interject into the affairs of others. We pick and choose what "tyrical" governments to oppose based on our needs. Otherwise, we would spend more time and resources in places like Darfur.
We aren't viewed as saviors in the middle east, rather occupiers.
Truman
ReplyDeleteYou ask for 5 metrics that show that the stimulus did not work because you cannot accept that the two metrics that the Obama administration put forth fell short.
Some have said Cash for Clunkers was successful but when I have talked with area car dealers the overwhelming assessment is that it pushed people into the market 6 months earlier, ate up existing inventory, and reduced inventory in the secondary market. Used car lots, and those that purchase them, lost out as the cars involved in trades under the program had to be destroyed. We did not see an increase in production since the big sell off.
Appliance for Clunkers meet similar fate. In case you missed that one, it was a program that took place at the start of 2010.
I do not see why I need to craft 5 metrics when the administration laid out their targets and they failed.If we wanted to really give the economy a boost, we should have given all Americans a tax holiday. That was an idea being floated by Conservatives on Capital Hill.
Anonymous
ReplyDeleteI agree with you that in the Middle East we have become viewed as occupiers.
My reaction has been that we needed to be more aggressive. The focus was being to worried about every environmental concern. We needed a tough decision to make sure that the tar balls didn't reach the shore. We should have burned more, we should have accepted skimmer help from other countries and we should have held those that turned a blind eye to lax regulations be held accountable.
"When the world turns to America to be the police or final arbiter time after time, a certain level of arrogance will creep in but to lambaste the entire foreign policy as arrogant is reckless."
ReplyDeleteI never heard anyone say the "ENTIRE FOREIGN POLICY" is arrogant. Can you cite a country, person or leader who has said this?
"We are giving up our Nuclear power - civil and military - by keeping the moratorium in place of no new nuclear power plants and the nuclear arms reduction treaty with Russia."
As of 5/3/2010, the US has 5,113 nuclear warheads of varying sizes and capabilities. Russia has about the same. I'm not sure this is very much "reduction" to those who watch us sit on Mt Olympus with our nuclear weapons and say "none for you". Also, the treaty signed last year with Russia was landmark. But you say Obama has done nothing but bow and apologize. That seems contradictory does it not?
"I agree that Bush signed into law TARP, which Democrats passed in Congress, but the White House reports that money is being paid back ahead of schedule."
Don't try to pass the buck now. It was a Bush leadership proposal, requested by Bush and supported by the majority of congress, Democrat and Republican. It's very convenient to try to lay it now at the Democrats feet but it's also dishonest.
"You are correct that I am not former military. That still does not mean I lack understanding that base presence has on the view that America is an Imperial Country."
Having served in the US Navy, I find your lack of humility on this subject reprehensible. The reference I was refering to was your statement that all foreign policy should be done through specops and "light infantry". Admit you DO NOT know what you are talking about - at least be honest and admit as much.
Your ignorant armchair general'ing would get soldiers killed. "Light Infantry"? Really? First define "light infantry? Are we talking the 3rd armored or the 82nd airborne? If it's the 82nd, do we just drop them into Somalia to deal with terrorists? We don't use air power, we don't use naval support? Where do we get them their logistics from? Where would the airforce be based? The absolute absurdity of how little you know compared to what you presume to know is staggering. Your inability to admit that you don't know is what annoys me. Watching the military channel does not make you an expert.
"I am the one being disingenuous? Please. Just because tax receipts are lower does not mean we increase spending. You argument would carry water if the spending was at previous year levels but that is not the case here."
Stop ducking the question. What are the 5 metrics that you are using to support your assertion that the stimulus DID NOT do anything to fix the economy? Either answer that or admit you are talking out your arse.
"Yes we are the richest most powerful nation but we are also experiencing a recession with many Americans out of work. Why are giving money to other countries when our own citizens suffer?"
Yes, americans are suffering compared to where they were 5 years ago. But have you ever stepped outside this country? I get the impression you haven't except maybe to mexico for a little spring break.
The fact is, even at our worst off, we are far better off than most of the rest of the world. Perhaps you should step out of your protective little bubble and go experience the world. You might find you're far better off than you think. And that you take for granted the very freedoms that the rest of the world envies us for.
Until you do that, I doubt your opinions will change because you look at the world with your eyes blindered like a horse in a barn - only seeing what is in front of you. And in my humble opinion, that's no way to go through life.
"I do not see why I need to craft 5 metrics when the administration laid out their targets and they failed."
ReplyDeleteSo you admit you have NO FOUNDATION to your statement? Great, thanks, that's the first honest thing I think you've said here so far.
"the two metrics that the Obama administration put forth fell short. "
Falling short of what the optimal success is different than failure. If your child gets a B for a grade, is that "less success" or is it "failure"? In your world I suspect it must be failure.
So "Cash for Clunkers" is the only stimulus you can point to that failed? I would argue that the industry burned off excess inventory, that the multiplier effect of capital invested caused a ripple through the economy and that for every dollar spent in the program you got a return of 1.4. (That's pretty standard economics by the way) Not to mention, it kept people employed which means that they pay taxes, pay mortgages, buy food, buy fuel, pay their bills, etc. All things that stimulate the economy. So how exactly did this fail? Again, cite a metric, don't cite opinions and hearsay.
Truman
ReplyDeleteI am not sure why I need to create metrics that Obama did not say would indicate that Stimulus success. Obama stated that success of Stimulus relied on two factors - unemployment rate and jobs created or saved - both factors that did not take place. Here are some other economical benchmarks to display this further:
New home sales (https://www.census.gov/const/quarterly_sales.pdf)
2006 - 1051
2007 - 776
2008 - 485
2009 - 375
2010 - 182 thru two quarters
Compared to prior year first two quarters
2006- 585
2007- 448
2008- 284
2009- 188
Since Stimulus we have seen a decline in new housing.
Inventories is another economic indicator:
http://www.census.gov/briefrm/esbr/www/esbr024.html
As one can see inventories have declined since the peak in 2009 with US total business down in June by .6% even with a slight up tick in inventories (.3%).
Consumer Confidence Index if falling short of expectations
http://www.pollingreport.com/consumer.htm#Conference
Combined these three metrics along with the Cash for's and the original two metrics and I'd say we have enough data points to show stimulus has not been a success. It has been successful in driving up our national debt so there is a winner I guess.
First off, thank you for attempting to answer my point.
ReplyDelete"Obama stated that success of Stimulus relied on two factors - unemployment rate and jobs created or saved - both factors that did not take place."
No, he stated that they THOUGHT it would result in the metrics being X. In reality the metrics were Y. But even conservative economists admit that without the stimulus, the metrics would have been Z. Your assertion is that Obama said they would be X but we got Z, which means that the stimulus didn't have any effect and failed.
It may not have succeeded to the degree that they hoped, but that's different than failure.
New home sales is off, in part, due to a glut in inventory. What do used home sales look like would be my first question?
Second, the housing bubble burst, of course housing looks bad. What about unemployment? You say the stimulus failed. What would unemployment be if not for the stimulus? What is it now? Are those numbers the same? I say that they're not. I can cite why. Can you defend your position?
By the way, consumer confidence is NOT an economic indicator. GDP is an economic metric. Inflation/deflation are economic metrics. Unemployment is as well. As is CPI.
Consumer confidence is a poll of the consumer state of mind. It may impact things like consumer spending but it IS NOT an economic metric in and of itself because it's based upon opinion - not fact.
Viper,
ReplyDeleteDo you think the economy would be the same or better than it is without the stimulus? If so, what evidence do you use to support that conclusion? Beyond economic theories in a vacumn.
Viper, trying to help here as I think Truman is making a good point.
ReplyDeleteLike he said:
The President predicted/projected that the stimulus would keep unemployment below "x" and save or create "a" number of jobs.
The stimulus has resulted in an unemployment rate of "y" and the number of jobs saved or created is "b".
Most economists agree that if there had been no stimulus the unemployment rate would have been "z" and the number of jobs saved or created would have been "c".
In the example above, "x" and "a" were the predictions/projections and in some ways the best case scenario, "y" and "b" are the reality of what has resulted, and "z" and "c" are what would have happened had there not been any stimulus package, the worst case scenario.
Do you honestly believe that just because "x" and "a" were not achieved that we just skip reality and assume that we're now in the worst case scenario?
If so, how? How is that logical? Rational? Informed? Objective?
Thanks for trying to clarify for me guys, I know my post was a bit confusing.
ReplyDeleteViper, I'm not trying to "beat your argument up" here. In fact, just the opposite. I think what you are trying to say has value and is a worthwhile discussion.
What I want you to do, is step away from your dogmatic position for a moment. Take opinion out and think about your position. Try to formulate a set of points that support you and then post them. I really do want to understand your perspective because while I think you tend to speak from a canon of beliefs that you feel strongly about - I think your emotions/opinions tend to drown out the message.
For example:
It's fine if you believe the stimulus failed. It's fine if you feel Obama is responsible. I'd ask what evidence brings you to that conclusion?
I hold the president respondible for a great deal. I also know he has very few levers that actually do anything economically so I'm honest about the fact that my angst towards him is emotionally driven not logically.
His vacations are ill-timed, but they aren't the "plethora" you speak of. His response to the spill was inept and passionless, but not incompetent. His economic position is flawed IMO due to its government centric positioning, but it is supported by a large number of economists so from Obama's position - he probably thinks he's doing whats best for the USA.
However, it's one thing to say things in that way, it's another to apply dogmatic/demagogic statements to those things and imply them as fact.
The issue I took greatest offense at with your original post was the same issue I took great offense at when people spoke of Bush - calling them unamerican or anti-america. Bush got hit with it due to his military/religious ideas and legislation. Obama with much more.
But honestly, do you truly believe that ANY president is somehow out to destroy the nation? If so, I think that reflects more on you than it does them? Me personally, I think they all do the best they can with what they were handed. And I also understand they're all human - which means they will fail.
Sadly, we as citizens, don't accept failure from our politicians anymore. That's why the end-game is so extreme, because failure is not an option.
Clark, Anon, and Truman
ReplyDeleteThe goal of stimulus was to keep unemployment below 8% and created or save 3 million jobs. Neither took place. If you create a goal to win a medal in the Olympics or a CEO wants to see organic sales increase by 5% and if one doesn't medal or sales don't increase by 5% then both goals are not achieved. By not achieving the goal you have failed the task.
Instead of using that logic you three are saying that we did our personal best in the Olympic event or we increased organic sales by 3% and that should be viewed as success. While it is a positive step it falls short of the goal or benchmark thus it failed.
Now, when Stimulus was being debated several Republicans,i.e. Rep. Ryan from Wisconsin, offered up alternative solutions to government spending spree. Economist say that recession typically run their course in 18 months. I agree that something needed to be done but mortgaging our grandchildren futures was not the way.
Consumerism is key to recovery. I blogged about his a while back too. How is the best way to get money into the hands of the people? Reduce their taxes. Now, I do not mean a temporary cut either. As I have advocated several times, we need to move away from our progressive tax system and implement a flat tax without tax credits. But that is not the point of our conversation here.
Consumers having more money to spend on durable goods is key to recovery. Having a private sector that is producing goods is key to recovery. So when I point out several metrics that prove that Stimulus failed to turn around the recession you three move the goal posts.
Btw, new housing numbers is a leading indicator while existing home sales is a lagging indicator.
I'm sorry Viper, but didn't your taxes go down and your paycheck go up (when you had one) shortly after Obama took office? Mine did.
ReplyDeleteBack to the success or failure of the stimulus. You again show how there is no in between with you. It's black or white; it is or it isn't; it succeeded or failed.
Now that you've added a bit of clarity to your simplistic rationale, answer this one question: would the country have been better off than it currently is if there would have been no stimulus package and the government had done nothing?
Yes or no?
No explanation. Just yes or no.
Clark
ReplyDeleteI acknowledge that something needed to be done but that something was not the mortgaging of our grandchildrens future. So, yes something needed to take place. That something is Consumerism and private sector growth. Any economist will agree that consumer spending drives an economy. The stimulus bill only attempted to shift consumer spending but did nothing to sustain it.
Now that extra kick you saw in your paycheck was nothing more than an accounting trick. Your tax burden for 2009 did not go down instead it was just kicked down the year. The same trick can be down by claiming 6 rather than 0 or 1 on your W2. I cannot believe people were duped into believing their taxes were reduced. The only reduction was the amount collected during the year while your tax burden for the year stayed the same.
Interestingly. the 3.5 million jobs creation was intended through Q4 of 2010. According to the CBO, 3.7 million jobs will be created through September.
ReplyDeletehttp://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/801-economy/99915-cbo-finds-stimulus-bill-boosted-job-growth
Other figures http://tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/05/cbo-stimulus-put-up-to-34m-to-work-in-first-quarter.php
http://cboblog.cbo.gov/?p=967
"The goal of stimulus was to keep unemployment below 8% and created or save 3 million jobs."
ReplyDeleteI don't disagree, that was what they hoped to achieve. The operating word in that sentence though is hoped. Economics is all theory, therefore it is not precise.
"If you create a goal to win a medal in the Olympics or a CEO wants to see organic sales increase by 5% and if one doesn't medal or sales don't increase by 5% then both goals are not achieved."
Interesting that you use the CEO example. So if the company achieves 4%, is that failure? Hold onto the answer for a second.
Unemployment is 9.5%. That means that 14.6M people are currently unemployed. Yes, the goal was 8%. However, if you factor in industries like Automotive that would have laid off considerably, that probably changes things.
Consider this, the auto industry employs roughly ~5M americans, not including mechanics, etc. Now if 50% of those are laid off due to lack of stimulus you have an increase to the unemployment of 17.1% for an unemployment rate of 11.3%. Those 2.5M workers pay an estimated 24.4B per year in taxes (fed/state) not to mention if they go unemployed many of the businesses relying on their consumer spending go bankrupt. Do you see the ripple that an industry this large has? And this is just 1 industry. There are many others I could cite.
So perhaps the perspective is everything. To the CEO who set the goal of 5% growth but only gets 4%, was it failure? Well, if the answer was that 5% was what was going to be achieved anyway, then yes. If the alternative to 5% was -2% then no, 4% isn't failure, it's just not optimal success. The world just isn't that black and white.
In this scenario, failure was 11.3% unemployment or worse (I'm being conservative in my math). Given that we only hit 10.1% at worst, I would argue we saw more success than we did failure. That means more tax receipts for the governments to pay bills. Lower deficits. And an increased economic position due to the multiplier effect that those businesses have within the economy.
It wasn't an optimal scenario, but what is?
"Consumerism is key to recovery."
So you are a Keynesian? I find that interesting given your economic stance on the stimulus. The entire point of the government spending was to make up for consumer demand. Your statement above is contradictory to your position on the stimulus therefore. Don't you see that? You can't believe in Keynesian theory with regards to consumerism and then discount Keynesian theory with regards to the stimulus since they are the same thing - consumer spending to create demand to stimulate the economy.
"Btw, new housing numbers is a leading indicator while existing home sales is a lagging indicator."
I'm aware of what they are, but using the indicator for recovery from the portion of the economy that collapsed the house of cards seems a bit odd. And given that housing starts are down because consumer demand is down and inventories are up means that the two indicators are directly corollary.
Viper,
ReplyDeleteI think the issue here is semantics more than anything.
Take this analogy:
Obama promised a full cup. We got a cup that is 2/3 full. The issue is that the cup is not full. Therefore, to some people, the cup is empty.
The problem with that logic is that the cup is not empty, it's just not full either.
That means that the positions therefore fall back to what dogma you choose to apply to the situation. You are using the "anything Obama does is bad" mantra.
The problem I see is this - that removes any chance for success on any level. Again, it's like saying that because your child didn't get an A, they are a failure. If that's the standard applied to us all, we're all F'd.
I guess what I'm saying is that your expectations are unrealistic. Success was never achievable because success was perfection.
Viper, you still didn't answer my question. But what would I expect from you?
ReplyDeleteI'll try again. Would the country have been better off than it currently is if there would have been no stimulus package and the government had done nothing? Yes or no.
I don't need to hear about what you would have done. If the stimulus was an abject failure, and you've said as much, then it wouldn't be outside of the realm of possibility to say that we would have been better off without it. Just answer yes or no.
And as for the paycheck issue, the government put more money in my pocket. If you received a paycheck, you also received more money courtesy of the federal government. How? It was part of the American Recovery & Reinvestment Act (ARRA). The specific provision, the Making Work Pay Provision, provided a refundable tax credit. It was a credit. Not a deduction. A credit. A tax credit by definition reduces your tax liability. A deduction is different. A deduction reduces your taxable income.
So don't give me some BS about this being an "accounting trick". Again, you want to have your cake and eat it too. Look at your comment earlier: "How is the best way to get money into the hands of the people? Reduce their taxes." Okay. They did it. People had more money in their pocket. But according to you it's an accounting trick. I suppose you were just as opposed to the 2008 Stimulus Checks. Those must have surely been an accounting trick.
Why is there such a range 1.2M to 2.3M of jobs created by the Stimulus? Also like to know how many of those jobs were temporary Census workers. And let's be honest here, the goal was for those 3.7 M jobs were suppose to be created and/or saved in year one.
ReplyDeleteDid anyone read the report? I find it interesting that "the recipients' reports, a total of 682,226 full-time equivalent jobs - more than two-thirds of them in education - were created or retained using ARRA funds during the first quarter." How does this equate to 1.2M to 2.3M?
Truman
ReplyDeleteIt is not black and white per se. If one has a goal of keeping unemployment below 8% and unemployment goes beyond that then one failed to attain the goal. As with the CEO example. The goal was organic growth of 5% - if that is not achieved the goal is not met thus it failed regardless if the result was -2% or 4%. The CEO metric is 5%.
What is the sense of having a discussion of metrics if say, "Well it's okay, we did some good but we didn't met the metric set forth"?
As for the automakers, Michigan's current unemployment rate is 13.2% (http://www.bls.gov/web/laus/laumstrk.htm). I do acknowledge that unemployment has a ripple effect through the rest of the economy. I also acknowledge that if Free Market forces are allowed to work without Government intervention that we would rebound from a downturn in 18 months.
My point of consumerism is not Keynesian because I do not see consumerism increased through government spending a good thing because the tab needs to be paid back which contradicts the attempts of Keynesian theory.We both agree that consumer spending stimulates the economy but it has to be organic spending to work. The Government handing out money is not organic spending.
Plus, not all of my blog entries have been "Obama is bad" I have given him praise when it has been applicable. Just no one comments on those posts.
" If you create a goal to win a medal in the Olympics or a CEO wants to see organic sales increase by 5% and if one doesn't medal or sales don't increase by 5% then both goals are not achieved. By not achieving the goal you have failed the task."
ReplyDeleteIf all you are willing to look at are those numbers, then sure, it's a failure. However, if I'm an athelete from a 3rd world country, I can state my goal is to win a medal, but everyone knows that it's an incredible long shot. There are so many outside factors. I can't control others being bigger, stronger, faster. I can't control the change of conditions that might occur from when I start or others do. Think skiing. What if I get hurt but yet still compete at my best? Is that failure.
As far as the CEO, no one looks at one factor as success. If sales grow 4% in a market that shrank 10%, that doesn't seem like failure. Or if sales did grow 5% but the market grow 80%, that can't be viewed as a success. If the CEO grew sales by 5% but spent millions more in promotional discounts then ever before, is that a success? What if the CEO grows sales but profit drops drastically? That's not a success. Or if the CEO seriously mismanages a product recall in Q4 harming future sales?
I gurantee you I can grow sales by 5% at any Fortune 500 company in the next year. None of it will be profitable and will harm the longterm health of the company.
The world isn't a vacumn.
Anonymous
ReplyDeleteWould the country have been better off than it currently is if there would have been no stimulus package and the government had done nothing?
If we had allowed Free Market forces to work without government influence we would be out of the recession by now. We did not need a the stimulus spending package that was passed, we did not need TARP, we did not need the expansion of TARP either. Other unknowns and uncertainties have stiffled Free Market forces - namely ObamaCare and potential tax increases. So Yes.
Anonymous
ReplyDeletePlease. As an Olympic athlete you know how fast you can run, swim, etc..so if your personal best doesn't rank in the top three of your competitors then it is not realistic to set your goal to obtain a medal. Now a stretch goal may be to get a medal but one is best served by setting the goal realistic.
Democrats and Obama were completely confident that if stimulus was past that they would keep unemployment under 8% and create 3.2M jobs in year one. Now, if that was not realistic then why say it? Why put that metric out there?
I agree the world is not a vacuum but quit making excuses for the failed policies of the Obama administration. We are still hovering around 10% unemployment and the only answer is to extend UE benefits.
What support do you have for this? "If we had allowed Free Market forces to work without government influence we would be out of the recession by now. "
ReplyDeleteNot challenging you, but curious when in history you are looking at to show that the free market would have taken care of a recession this large without government involvement.
For the record, here are the goals from the act itself: (1) To preserve and create jobs and promote economic
ReplyDeleterecovery.
(2) To assist those most impacted by the recession.
(3) To provide investments needed to increase economic
efficiency by spurring technological advances in science and
health.
(4) To invest in transportation, environmental protection,
and other infrastructure that will provide long-term economic
benefits.
(5) To stabilize State and local government budgets, in
order to minimize and avoid reductions in essential services
and counterproductive state and local tax increases.
Since you seem to want to be percise, that's what you should judge on.
I don't know why you don't accept that those stated numbers were goals and what they hoped, not the sole measure of success. No one can predict the results with 100% accuracy when dealing with a recession of a size we haven't seen in decades and with a economy that has countless influences and factors.
Call it making excuses if you like, I call it living in reality.
Anonymous
ReplyDeleteOkay, the goals are listed out but the metrics used to gauge success, per the White House, was unemployment rate and jobs created. These are the two numbers that were beaten into our heads while stimulus was being discussed. I did not put the metric on the goals above to measure success the White House did. I am simply holding them to their metrics.
Everything else is an excuse. Admit it failed and let's move on.
Umm, no, I don't think it failed nor do I think the White House judged success solely on those numbers. Ask the million people who have job because of it, and the thousands of companies they support now because of that job, and I bet they would tell you it's not a failure.
ReplyDeleteBut then again, I'm not trying to cast the White House as a failure.
Obviously, this conversation is going no where. I'm done.
What real world example supports this when done in our current conditions? "If we had allowed Free Market forces to work without government influence we would be out of the recession by now." That's a pretty bold factual claim without support.
ReplyDelete"It is not black and white per se. If one has a goal of keeping unemployment below 8% and unemployment goes beyond that then one failed to attain the goal."
ReplyDeleteYou understand that this statement is self contradictory right? It makes me wonder if you understand your own argument.
"The goal was organic growth of 5% - if that is not achieved the goal is not met thus it failed regardless if the result was -2% or 4%. The CEO metric is 5%."
A CEO puts a "stretch" goal of 5% growth on the board (they do this all the time). They only get 4%. By your math they should fire their management team. After all, they might as well have delivered -2% growth if they weren't going to hit 5%.
"As for the automakers, Michigan's current unemployment rate is 13.2% (http://www.bls.gov/web/laus/laumstrk.htm)."
And Minnesota's is 6.8%, so what? This is a wonderful red herring argument that has no value what-so-ever.
Last I heard Obama was president of the United States, not president of the United State (that state being Michigan). Taking one statistic out of context does not prove your point.
"My point of consumerism is not Keynesian because I do not see consumerism increased through government spending a good thing because the tab needs to be paid back which contradicts the attempts of Keynesian theory."
Ok, I'm going to have to chunk this down, because it needs multiple rebuttals.
""My point of consumerism is not Keynesian"
Really? Consumerism (ie - spending) is a key tenet of Keynesian Economics. Perhaps you need to take a college course or two.
"I do not see consumerism increased through government spending a good thing"
Consumerism is consumerism - plain and simple. The economy doesn't care who the consumer is. A business doesn't say "OMG, the Fed is trying to buy my product, NO WAY am I selling to them".
"because the tab needs to be paid back which contradicts the attempts of Keynesian theory."
Keynesian theory advocates strong government oversight and intervention in the economy when necessary. I'm not sure who taught you Keynesian Economics but you should ask for your money back because they screwed you over.
"We did not need a the stimulus spending package that was passed, we did not need TARP, we did not need the expansion of TARP either."
So you are contradicting even the most conservative economists (Nobel Laureates mind you) and claiming that you know more and that the TARP, and other stimulus DID NOT benefit the economy? Wow, you've got some serious cojones. Here's the problem, you don't have the credentials to be taken seriously and moreover - your statements here make it clear you have a very limited grasp of economics. That's not an insult, but perhaps you should know your limitations and admit that you just don't know what you're talking about. There's no shame in that.
"Other unknowns and uncertainties have stiffled Free Market forces - namely ObamaCare and potential tax increases. So Yes."
So "potential tax increases" have already stifled the free-market? Please tell me how future actions can do this? Also, please tell me when the last time was that the USA operated under a free market?
Anon:
"I don't know why you don't accept that those stated numbers were goals and what they hoped"
I am coming to the conclusion that Viper is being intentionally obtuse. It's one thing to argue from a point of ignorance, but to have it shown to you repeatedly that your position is flawed, especially when you are proven to have a limited grasp of the subject, and to not re-evaluate your position in some way smacks of being intentional.
I don't see a whole lot of point in trying further. He isn't listening, he's merely crafting rebuttals that fit into his ideological dogma. And there's just no debating with that.
"Everything else is an excuse. Admit it failed and let's move on."
ReplyDeletehttp://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/801-economy/99915-cbo-finds-stimulus-bill-boosted-job-growth
You conveniently ignored this the last time it was linked. Admit you are wrong Viper, or does your hubris prevent you from admitting fault?
Viper, just curious if you still think the extra money in my paycheck was an "accounting trick". Looks like you just skipped right past that. What about the 2008 stimulus checks? More of the same? What about your comment that "the best way to get money into the hands of the people" is to "reduce their taxes"?
ReplyDeleteClark - The extra money in the paycheck was a deduction change while the working tax credit was separate. The original point was the more money in your pocket and then it got rolled into the working tax credit. They are two separate items.
ReplyDeleteTruman - did you read the CBO report? They admit the limitations of their tally may not be accurate. The CBO only admits that Stimulus can account for 682,226 full-time equivalent jobs. They speculate on the rest and even admit that in the official report. So I did go to the link and then I went to the source. Did you?
ReplyDeleteIn certain aspect of our society we run under a Free Market; unfortunately the only true Free Market is the Black Market. Remember when prohibition took hold? The Black Market took hold and people still continued to drink. It just cost more and ended up killing more people.
ReplyDeleteI agree that Government should make sure that people are operating ethically and providing a product that is untainted. Then the Government needs to step back and let the Free Market play out. No bailouts, no tax credits, and no heavy handed regulations.
Viper, sorry, you're wrong.
ReplyDeleteThe extra money in the paycheck was not a deduction change. I made no deduction change. It would quite a coincidence if every employed taxpayer in the country made a deduction change at the same exact time that resulted in the same exact increase in the amount of their paycheck. It just didn't happen that way. Painful as it may be for you, the government put more money in my pocket. I'll assume you had more money in your pocket too at that time. Not sure if you were still employed or not.
Just read this: http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=204447,00.html
And "the original point", as you so eloquently stated was that "the best way to get money into the hands of the people" is to "reduce their taxes". Well, they did it. The tax rate was not reduced, but a tax credit was given. That's just as good.
All I'm looking for here is for you to give credit where credit is due (pun intended). But why would you start now?
"Truman - did you read the CBO report?"
ReplyDeleteYes, I did.
"They admit the limitations of their tally may not be accurate."
The CBO is the benchmark for non-partisan analysis of federal statistics. Sorry, but I'll take their information over Rush/Glenn's any day and twice on Sunday.
"The CBO only admits that Stimulus can account for 682,226 full-time equivalent jobs."
That's not what you said so don't try changing the story now.
You said, and I quote, "...and create 3.2M jobs in year one." You never specified what types of jobs.
The CBO states that the stimulus created 3.7M jobs. That exceeds the 3.2M that you are holding Obama to.
I find it incredibly amusing that the moment you are challenged with actual statistics that refute your claims you change the rules to make them more suitable to your argument.
That's like playing a football game and having your opponent score a touchdown only for you to say that it doesn't count because they ran it across the goal line, where the rules clearly state NOW (after you change them) that they must now sprout wings and fly it across.
It's BS, and if you were being honest, you'd admit it.
"In certain aspect of our society we run under a Free Market;"
What? A market is either free market or it's not. And we are not. We operate under a current form of crony-capitalism, not free market capitalism. NO WHERE in our society is the market a free market - not even the black market. Because the black market is heavily regulated via criminalization of the activities.
Seriously man, who taught you about business and economics? Tom Petters?
Care to reverse course on the oil spill again? or at least go to neutral? Or admit we won't know the damage for sometime.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/20/science/earth/20plume.html?_r=1&hp
Truman
ReplyDeleteThe CBO report did not report the stimulus created 3.7M jobs, it said it COULD create. Plus, the CBO admits the only job number that they can accurately count is the 682,226 full-time equivalent jobs. The rest of the jobs are assumed based on the criteria that the CBO laid out in their report.
I am being honest to what the CBO said.
The Black Market is "heavily regulated via criminalization of the activities"? The prices are set by supply and demand in the Black Market and their is a premium as well because of risk taken by suppliers. That is a true free market.
Anonymous - I don't care to reverse my course on the oil spill. The article stated that the microbes that eat the oil plume is taking place but slower than originally though because the plume is in 40 degree water. The scientist acknowledged that the colder water is just slowing done the rate but the microbes are working. So when the waters warm, it would appear, that the microbes will become more vigorous and devour the plume.
ReplyDeleteWhich won't happen any time soon, according to the article. Which also toxic effect on plankton. Which I'm sure you know is vital for fish. Plankton dies. Fish that eat plankton die. Animals that eat those fish die.
ReplyDeleteAnd some experts suggest that the impact will last a lifetime.
But hey, the discovery of a 20 mile wide, one mile long, 600 foot thick oil plum isn't anything to be worried about. Nothing long term can come from that.
Anon - Yes, if Plankton is effected than it will impact fish supplies but the article did note that the impact needs more investigation and is inclusive as of yet.
ReplyDeleteThe question now is what are we going to do to help breakdown the plume?
"The CBO report did not report the stimulus created 3.7M jobs, it said it COULD create."
ReplyDeleteThat's a dishonest paraphrasing Viper. Here's the actual quote.
"The CBO also projects that 3.7 million jobs could be attributed to the stimulus by the end of September."
That means that the CBO projects that ~3.7 billion jobs could be attributed to the stimulus. Not that it could have created them. There's a big difference.
"The Black Market is "heavily regulated via criminalization of the activities"? The prices are set by supply and demand in the Black Market and their is a premium as well because of risk taken by suppliers."
Here's the definition of a free market.
"A free market is a market without economic intervention and regulation by government except to enforce ownership ("property rights") and contracts."
By definition, a black market is regulated because everything on it is illegal - meaning that the government regulations ban the transactions. The fact that they occur and that risk is involved does not matter.
Furthermore, ownership rights cannot be enforced and contracts cannot be enforced in a black market because ownership is itself illegal.
Ex - you own 1kg of cocaine. The police raid your house and confiscate it. You have NO recourse to recover your property nor do your customers have a right to enforce contracts for delivery since the product itself cannot be owned due to extreme regulation in the form of de-legalization.
Your point falls flat therefore - black markets cannot be free markets.
Great, so you admit we need more time and no one has the right to say the reaction or impact was overblown, because if the expert marine biologists don't know, you and I certainly can't.
ReplyDeleteAnd the fish supplies impacts the economy of the region, so this is kind of a big deal after all.
Why should we do anything? I thought the great Mother Earth would take care of it
Truman
ReplyDeleteYes, could be attributed that does not translate into is. The language is vague because the CBO acknowledges they do not have the ability to show a direct correlation. Our job market just lost another 500,000 jobs. Does that mean we reduce the number of jobs "attributed"?
According to the American Dictionary a Free market is:
An economic market in which supply and demand are not regulated or are regulated with only minor restrictions.
The fact that something is illegal doesn't matter to the Free Market. The fact that a demand exists and one can supply that demand a market exists.
But since you quoted wikipedia I will too here: Agorists and some other proponents of the free market argue that the black market is the most free market.
Anonymous - I do not change my stance that the reaction or impact is overblown. I merely acknowledge that not all the oil plumes have disappeared. Yes, Mother Nature has done a great job of dealing with the oil but why not help where we can?
ReplyDeleteAnd your assertion of needing more time goes both way - do you admit that?
Sure, and that's why I'm not passing judgment on the response.
ReplyDelete"Yes, could be attributed that does not translate into is. The language is vague because the CBO acknowledges they do not have the ability to show a direct correlation."
ReplyDeleteThe language of the article was vague. However, it wasn't written by the CBO. And, I really wish you'd go take a statistics course before you use statistical terminology.
No, correlation does not imply causation, that is correct. However they don't just analyze correlation. They use Pearsons correlation coefficient which measures dependence between two variables as well as other mathematical models to determine the causation relationship.
According to the CBO's own rules, it's not enough to have correlation (direct or indirect), they must be able to point to strong positive dependence between the variables.
This level of conservativism in their analysis is why they are considered the benchmark for government analysis by both political parties.
The fact that you seem to be flying in the face of that fact, puts you at odds with nearly everyone else.