Side-by-side economics: McCain/Palin vs. Obama/Biden

Page 3 of 5 [ 72 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

14 Sep 2008, 3:53 pm

matrix wrote:
I started this thread with the sole purpose of getting some homework help. In my econ class we have to discuss and asses both economic policies, but "where's the meat?"

Oh, just argue the median voter theory. The politicians are mostly the same because rational politicians in a 2 party system will run towards the middle in order to capture the most votes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Median_voter_theory

Given that this is an economics concept, you probably won't lose points for promoting a view like that.



Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

14 Sep 2008, 3:54 pm

Hurricane_Delta wrote:
Okay, I've had enough of this BS. They'll new jobs right. Yeah they'll probably get a less well-paying job as a waiter or something. You're saying that your average working class guy,. who probaly has an associate's degree if lucky will get a high paid management position. I'm going have to call bullcrap on this one.

I think that our side has conceded that free trade can cause some labor market issues, however, the major argument is that free trade creates progress, this has been shown with studies on growth between free-trade and non-free trade countries, this is also shown in most understandings of free trade even the basic notion of Ricardo's comparative advantage. Progress, in the long run, increases the general standard of living.
Quote:
And lets forget that NAFTA hurt Mexican Farmers, who are now also out work. In essence, NAFTA decimated the US industrial sector, and the Mexican Farming Seector.

Well, ok. Statements. Nice. You still haven't undermined the overall logic. Frankly, for entire sectors of an economy to be displaced by free trade is not really a problem, I mean, all you are doing is moving factories and farms to places that can create the same output for less input. Less input per unit of output means we have a more efficient system, this is part of progress. The idea is that if we have greater efficiency, we will then have more resources to allocate and thus create even more jobs due to a desire to produce more products.



ed
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Dec 2004
Age: 79
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,788
Location: Whitinsville, MA

14 Sep 2008, 3:57 pm

matrix wrote:
I started this thread with the sole purpose of getting some homework help. In my econ class we have to discuss and asses both economic policies, but "where's the meat?"


Have you been paying any attention to what the candidates themselves are saying? They are offering policies that are diametrically opposed to each other... If this is an economics class, you should be able to come up with your own ideas based on what the candidates are saying.


_________________
How can we outlaw a plant created by a perfect God?


Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,518
Location: Room 101

14 Sep 2008, 4:47 pm

ed wrote:
matrix wrote:
I started this thread with the sole purpose of getting some homework help. In my econ class we have to discuss and asses both economic policies, but "where's the meat?"


Have you been paying any attention to what the candidates themselves are saying? They are offering policies that are diametrically opposed to each other... If this is an economics class, you should be able to come up with your own ideas based on what the candidates are saying.

How? McCain certainly hasn't voiced any coherent economic plan, and "the Obama plan" is still quite fuzzy, not to mention socialistic.


_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH


Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

14 Sep 2008, 4:49 pm

Orwell wrote:
How? McCain certainly hasn't voiced any coherent economic plan, and "the Obama plan" is still quite fuzzy, not to mention socialistic.

Orwell, I think it is quite clear that the Obama plan represents CHANGE.



Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,518
Location: Room 101

14 Sep 2008, 4:53 pm

Awesomelyglorious wrote:
Orwell does not always try to phrase things diplomatically,

:P

Quote:
and I already argued with him for misrepresenting the difference between normative and positive economics on this issue,

OK, fine, I'll conceded your point there. Economists aren't supposed to say whether something is good or not but rather just what consequences it will likely have. So, strictly speaking, if I want to be more formal in an economic sense I wouldn't say that free trade is good, I would say that free trade promotes an overall increase in standard of living. But, it probably is simpler and more to the point to say the former, and few would argue against an increase in standard of living, so in the spirit of George Orwell's 1946 essay on Politics and the English Language I say, screw the semantic differences between normative and positive economics. An economic policy is good if it leads to desired results, which include low inflation, high employment, economic growth, and progress generally. Thus, it is easier and better to simply say "X is good" rather than "X will serve to promote economic growth."


_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH


Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,518
Location: Room 101

14 Sep 2008, 5:01 pm

Awesomelyglorious wrote:
Orwell, I think it is quite clear that the Obama plan represents CHANGE.

As soon as Palin was nominated, McCain started his own "Change" mantra for his campaign. And if we are to recall the wise words of one Nicholas Karamzin, "all novelty in the political order is an evil to which recourse is to be had only of necessity.... The reforms accomplished so far give us no reason to believe that future reforms will prove useful; we anticipate them more with dread than with hope, for it is dangerous to tamper with ancient political structures.... We require more preservative than creative wisdom.... Novelties breed novelties, and encourage despotic licentiousness.... one of the main reasons for the dissatisfaction of Russian with the present government is its excessive fondness for political changes."

There are some more Karamzin quotes that could also fit, but they would require some more expoundment and I think I've made my point.

For anyone who's interested, Karamzin was a conservative historian during the reign of Emperor Alexander I in Russia. I'm quite enjoying college classes so far.


_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH


monty
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Sep 2007
Age: 62
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,741

14 Sep 2008, 8:00 pm

Orwell wrote:
How? McCain certainly hasn't voiced any coherent economic plan, and "the Obama plan" is still quite fuzzy, not to mention socialistic.


Economists that support Obama:
http://econ4obama.blogspot.com/2008/06/ ... nomic.html

Economists that support McCain:
http://econ4obama.blogspot.com/2008/06/ ... mists.html

These may not be 100% up to date and complete - the url indicates an obvious possible bias.



Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,518
Location: Room 101

14 Sep 2008, 8:14 pm

Only slightly biased there, monty. That still doesn't answer the question of what these two people believe on economic matters, so we are left where we began.


_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH


Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

14 Sep 2008, 8:20 pm

Orwell wrote:
I say, screw the semantic differences between normative and positive economics. An economic policy is good if it leads to desired results, which include low inflation, high employment, economic growth, and progress generally. Thus, it is easier and better to simply say "X is good" rather than "X will serve to promote economic growth."

Well, the reason we have a difference between normative and positive economics is to make sure our analysis is not linked to our morals. If an opponent is convinced we are of terrible moral character, constantly linking analysis and morality together will only serve to weaken the position. Plus, in general, I hate the notion of good anyway.



Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,518
Location: Room 101

14 Sep 2008, 8:42 pm

Awesomelyglorious wrote:
Plus, in general, I hate the notion of good anyway.

So, good is bad? :P


_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH


Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

14 Sep 2008, 8:48 pm

Orwell wrote:
Awesomelyglorious wrote:
Plus, in general, I hate the notion of good anyway.

So, good is bad? :P

It is doubleplus ungood.



Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,518
Location: Room 101

14 Sep 2008, 9:10 pm

Awesomelyglorious wrote:
It is doubleplus ungood.

AG is a blackwhite duckspeaker.

For those as obsessed with 1984 as me, can you tell me (off the top of your head, no cheating!) where in the book those descriptors are found and defined, and whether they are terms of praise or abuse? Order of Conspicuous Merit for the first person to answer correctly! But remember no cheating... Big Brother is watching you.


_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH


monty
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Sep 2007
Age: 62
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,741

14 Sep 2008, 9:31 pm

Orwell wrote:
Only slightly biased there, monty. That still doesn't answer the question of what these two people believe on economic matters, so we are left where we began.


Well, are we going to the exact answer in the exact form that is desired? Have we read the economic policy statements of each candidate? Is there a McCain equivalent of the economists supporting him?



Cyanide
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Sep 2006
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,003
Location: The Pacific Northwest

14 Sep 2008, 9:54 pm

Orwell wrote:
In any case, never mind the argument about free trade. Neither Obama nor McCain seem to be strong proponents of free trade policies, so let's try to move the debate back to what those two candidates actually advocate.

If anyone can figure out what the hell that is. :P


bailouts and subsidies?



ToadOfSteel
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Sep 2007
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,157
Location: New Jersey

14 Sep 2008, 11:07 pm

Orwell wrote:
Awesomelyglorious wrote:
It is doubleplus ungood.

AG is a blackwhite duckspeaker.

For those as obsessed with 1984 as me, can you tell me (off the top of your head, no cheating!) where in the book those descriptors are found and defined, and whether they are terms of praise or abuse? Order of Conspicuous Merit for the first person to answer correctly! But remember no cheating... Big Brother is watching you.

Is there crimethink going on here?