 
Support Wrong Planet Awareness!
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
LKL
Phoenix
Joined: Jul 22, 2007
Age: 32
Posts: 1081
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Jainaday
in uncertain taste
Joined: Jul 09, 2007
Age: 24
Posts: 1348
Location: in the They
|
 Posted: Sat Oct 04, 2008 3:42 am Post subject: |
 |
|
Interesting. . .
I actually feel the whole system needs to be scrapped, which makes them less interesting than they otherwise would be. . . |
|
| Back to top |
|
Sand
Phoenix
Joined: Sep 16, 2007
Posts: 2035
Location: Finland
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 04, 2008 4:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Considering the abject subjugation of Congress to Bush how would you do that without a popular revolution and what would you put in its place? |
|
| Back to top |
|
Cyanide
Leader of Shadaloo
Joined: Sep 25, 2006
Posts: 1405
Location: OR
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 04, 2008 4:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Despite popular belief, the economy really isn't affected very much by the President. Sure, the President can control Fiscal Policy (taxes/spending), which has some effect, but the Federal Reserve controls monetary policy which has a much larger effect. During Clinton's reign, Alan Greenspan was busy making the gigantic bubble that's now just beginning to burst. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Jainaday
in uncertain taste
Joined: Jul 09, 2007
Age: 24
Posts: 1348
Location: in the They
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 04, 2008 5:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Sand wrote: | | Considering the abject subjugation of Congress to Bush how would you do that without a popular revolution and what would you put in its place? |
No, and post labor syndicalism. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Delirium
Phoenix
Joined: Nov 25, 2007
Age: 18
Posts: 647
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 04, 2008 9:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Jainaday wrote: | | Sand wrote: | | Considering the abject subjugation of Congress to Bush how would you do that without a popular revolution and what would you put in its place? |
No, and post labor syndicalism. |
Ah, like the Industrial Workers of the World/Pierre-Joseph Proudhon?
_________________
"Bodies are for hookers and fat people!" |
|
| Back to top |
|
Jainaday
in uncertain taste
Joined: Jul 09, 2007
Age: 24
Posts: 1348
Location: in the They
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 04, 2008 9:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Delirium wrote: | | Jainaday wrote: | | Sand wrote: | | Considering the abject subjugation of Congress to Bush how would you do that without a popular revolution and what would you put in its place? |
No, and post labor syndicalism. |
Ah, like the Industrial Workers of the World/Pierre-Joseph Proudhon? |
heh. . . yeah, sort of like that. .. . I'm not deeply familiar with Proudhon, and post-labor does mean things would have to be set up in such a way that "union" was an irrelevant concept.
sorry for the unclarity earlier; what I meant by "no" was, "no, I wouldn't expect that change without a popular uprising." |
|
| Back to top |
|
Sand
Phoenix
Joined: Sep 16, 2007
Posts: 2035
Location: Finland
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Awesomelyglorious
Destroyer of worlds, reaver of souls
Joined: Dec 18, 2005
Posts: 6120
Location: United States
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 04, 2008 2:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Figure 1 does not do much for me. All it shows is how a specific sector of the economy is doing. The jobs figure can be harder to assess given that Clinton was riding on forces beyond his control(not saying he was a bad economic president at all). This is especially hurt given that the subprime crisis has been having a large impact on the economy for the last 2 years, which will skew any results between presidents given that Bush does not hold a lot of responsibility for something like that.
Figure 2 is more important. The issue is when the 2007 statistic was gotten. However, the Bush economic policies are just crap, and that is certainly from a left-wing standpoint, however, it should hold true from a right-wing standpoint.
Figure 3 and Figure 2 conflict with each other. Unless the US has had an average population growth rate above 2.3%, which it hasn't. That being said, once again, one has to recognize that Clinton had a lot of good fortune whereas Bush started off with an internet bust and is ending with a real estate bust, both of which are not things he could do much to control. That being said, the Bush tax cuts are bad policy.
Figure 4 seems valid, and supply side economics is crap.
Figure 5 is rather meaningless unless we argue that the President can control gas prices, which seems unlikely.
Figure 6 is reasonably valid, once again, I will have to point to the 2 economic struggles during the Bush administration. However, Bush tax cuts are not likely the best thing for the stock market.
Figure 7 is rather meaningless. Average unemployment rate is more important as the unemployment rate at a given point is only reflective of the economic health at a period of time.
Figure 9 is rather meaningless. The comparative value of the dollar is only important so much as it relates to other important things. Frankly, a lower dollar is a natural reaction to a trade deficit. This is not to say that the Bush dollar drop is a sign of economic health, it is just that I think the statistic is not driven by the notion "rapid currency fluctuations are bad" so much as "look, the dollar is weaker, we want a strong dollar", the former being valid, and the latter being less valuable.
Figure 10 only has 2 important figures, the last figure is completely unimportant as it seems ridiculous to argue that we should both blame Bush for bad ending economic figures, and for trying to solve them with a loose money policy. Not only that, but Bush is not responsible for inflation so much as the federal reserve is. I mean, we can argue that Bush is responsible for bad economic situations but that does not seem that true.
Anyway, all of that said, these figures don't say much at all. Only a few of them seem to and they lack a level of necessary analysis, and two figures seem to contradict each other. So, really, the figures aren't interesting so much as they are just trying to attack Bush. That said, I would bet that Clinton's economic policies are better than Bush's.
_________________
Destroying reality since the end of time. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Jainaday
in uncertain taste
Joined: Jul 09, 2007
Age: 24
Posts: 1348
Location: in the They
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 04, 2008 6:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Awesomelyglorious wrote: |
Anyway, all of that said, these figures don't say much at all. Only a few of them seem to and they lack a level of necessary analysis, and two figures seem to contradict each other. So, really, the figures aren't interesting so much as they are just trying to attack Bush. That said, I would bet that Clinton's economic policies are better than Bush's. |
True enough; to me, they are important insofar as conservatives would outright lie about the same pseudo-indicators. . . . and they do. . . . |
|
| Back to top |
|
LKL
Phoenix
Joined: Jul 22, 2007
Age: 32
Posts: 1081
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 05, 2008 2:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
It's true that each of those figures is a snapshot that could have been finessed to paint a more dramatic picture than reality, but I don't think that they have. They certainly match my perception of what the economy is vs. what it was, and of the relative economic legitimacy of the presidencies in question - in fact, I think that the trend has been clear enough that it would be difficult to finness the numbers in the opposite direction.
Seems like a couple of years ago there was news every Friday about how the Bush administration was eliminating the tracking of this or that economic indicator, because the numbers kept on making him look bad. Does anyone who knows more about economics remember this, and have any specifics? |
|
| Back to top |
|
Awesomelyglorious
Destroyer of worlds, reaver of souls
Joined: Dec 18, 2005
Posts: 6120
Location: United States
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 05, 2008 2:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Jainaday wrote: |
True enough; to me, they are important insofar as conservatives would outright lie about the same pseudo-indicators. . . . and they do. . . . |
All political parties lie about the statistics. Part of the issue is knowing what statistics are good, and knowing the logic behind anything.
_________________
Destroying reality since the end of time. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Orwell
Outer Party Member
Joined: Aug 09, 2007
Age: 19
Posts: 4243
Location: Room 101
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 05, 2008 2:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Awesomelyglorious wrote: | | All political parties lie about the statistics. Part of the issue is knowing what statistics are good, and knowing the logic behind anything. |
Most statistics should be regarded with a healthy level of skepticism. Apriorism is probably a better method to determine policy, as empirical analysis of economic policies in human society has too many confounding variables to be able to account for, which leaves the results fairly meaningless. Since ceteris paribus can almost never be justified as an accurate assumption, given the constant changes that occur in society, statistical analysis of economics doesn't tell you much that can really be accepted as valid if you're being rigorous about it.
_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH |
|
| Back to top |
|
Awesomelyglorious
Destroyer of worlds, reaver of souls
Joined: Dec 18, 2005
Posts: 6120
Location: United States
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 05, 2008 2:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
| LKL wrote: | It's true that each of those figures is a snapshot that could have been finessed to paint a more dramatic picture than reality, but I don't think that they have. They certainly match my perception of what the economy is vs. what it was, and of the relative economic legitimacy of the presidencies in question - in fact, I think that the trend has been clear enough that it would be difficult to finness the numbers in the opposite direction.
Seems like a couple of years ago there was news every Friday about how the Bush administration was eliminating the tracking of this or that economic indicator, because the numbers kept on making him look bad. Does anyone who knows more about economics remember this, and have any specifics? |
Well, somewhat true. I think the stats are more dramatic than reality, to be honest. I agree, Bush has not pushed the economy in the best direction.
Well, frankly, all I really have to say is that supply side economics tends to fail due to the basic macro equation Y=G+C+I+NX, if Y is relatively constant, as is G, then any changes in tax rate will end up having an impact solely upon C, I, and NX, and C(consumption) should only increase due to tax cuts, while NX(our trade surplus, if such existed) would only decrease, or I(our level of investment) would only decrease(we either need to draw financial support for governing here or abroad). Good values for NX and I are more important for long-run economic stability than C is anyway, meaning that supply side economics seems questionable, at least due to a neo-classical model of the economy.
_________________
Destroying reality since the end of time. |
|
| Back to top |
|
LKL
Phoenix
Joined: Jul 22, 2007
Age: 32
Posts: 1081
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 05, 2008 3:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
| for those of us whose last official economics class was in high school, would you care to describe that equation in basic terms? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|
