Jump to content

Elections, Elections, Elections


BansheeOne

Recommended Posts

I am not surprised about the Greek result, they should have stuck to their guns and had the referendum. The Greek public needs to own the issue, they are still in blame everyone else mode. Of course the EU leadership types were never big on democracy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 1.5k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Greeks will never admit to anything, especially that they dug the hole they are in. Why loan anything to Greece? Much better transfer sovereignty of some nice Aegean islands to the Germans and then the Greeks thee can actually have jobs without having to move. The Germans will definitely be curious about Kos and Leros etc. it would be islands of efficiency in a sea of dysfunction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

....

Nobel laureate Paul Krugman is as authoritative in economic matters as Yasser Arafat was in peace making. You can do better than quoting Wikipedia too.

 

The facts about the 1920 depression are there, like them or not. They aren't a recent creation. You wanted examples of "austerity" policies working and I gave you the most spectacular recovery from an economic collapse in recent US history, which led to a decade of unprecedented economic growth. Obviously not good enough, compared to FDR's shining success in the 30's, or the wonderful "recovery" we are experiencing now.

 

What, more of this Paul Krugman, worst economist in the world stuff? Perhaps because he fails to feed the preconceived notions of the RW, but you always have the internet for that. I'll still take a Princeton professor, PhD and, yes, the Noble laureate over some TN hacker. How many books ahve you published lately on the topics? I thought so.

 

1920-22 is clearly unrelated to any success postulated for austerity. Your 'interpretation' lacks demonstrable cause and effect. It is not even a 'depression,' just a newly discovered creation of the RW, still grasping for support for impossible ideological pap.

 

Wikie ought to be enough factual material for such a simple case. Your 'facts' remain highly derived, to be kind. But maybe you just don't like to read.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

....

Nobel laureate Paul Krugman is as authoritative in economic matters as Yasser Arafat was in peace making. You can do better than quoting Wikipedia too.

 

The facts about the 1920 depression are there, like them or not. They aren't a recent creation. You wanted examples of "austerity" policies working and I gave you the most spectacular recovery from an economic collapse in recent US history, which led to a decade of unprecedented economic growth. Obviously not good enough, compared to FDR's shining success in the 30's, or the wonderful "recovery" we are experiencing now.

 

What, more of this Paul Krugman, worst economist in the world stuff? Perhaps because he fails to feed the preconceived notions of the RW, but you always have the internet for that. I'll still take a Princeton professor, PhD and, yes, the Noble laureate over some TN hacker. How many books ahve you published lately on the topics? I thought so.

 

1920-22 is clearly unrelated to any success postulated for austerity. Your 'interpretation' lacks demonstrable cause and effect. It is not even a 'depression,' just a newly discovered creation of the RW, still grasping for support for impossible ideological pap.

Wikie ought to be enough factual material for such a simple case. Your 'facts' remain highly derived, to be kind. But maybe you just don't like to read.

 

You caught me! Please wait until I get further instructions from my zionist masters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

You caught me! Please wait until I get further instructions from my zionist masters.

 

 

???? My mistake; I thought I was in an adult discussion. But that's FFZ for you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ken:

 

The way I see it in historic terms up and including today is that a capitaist economy will have booms and busts. That is just the way it is.

Which means the more capitalist leaning GOP will tend to create more speculative conditions resulting in more busts as that is the nature of greed. The current down economy is about 50-50% party responsible as I previously named the villians both D & R ( repeal of Glass -Steagal both parties heavily involved , S&L dereg. both parties heavily involved , housing bubble included).

 

However our capitalist system tends to heal itself much quicker under a GOP leadership then under Dem leadership.

 

The Dems don't do much to fix the economy they just try to raise the safety net instead and re-regulate. If the Dems re-regulated quickly the economy would probably heal quicker but the Dems drag it out for years on end. Examples FDR in the '30s and Obama now.

The economy needs a roadmap with specific routes drawn up not vague meandering N. by N.E. directions or such taking years to hatch .

 

As to down turns.

* 1973-6 Arab oil embargo with Nixon behaving like a New Dealer.

* 1979 -1981 M.E. oil again with Carter over his head. Reagan fixed in 2 years.

* 1988 S&L bubble & flop , both parties guilty but Bush 41 acted quickly and decisively but painfully and the RTC cleared the books ( painfully).

* 1992 slowdown as result of Cold War ending and DoD cuts which was just normal economics. But Clinton handles like a GOP'er eventually.

* 2000 Tech bubble burst....normal economics . No politics involved

* 2002 colapse as a part of 911 crisis with GOP fairly quick recovery.

* 2008 politically driven collapse with Obama over his head floundering as did FDR , Carter and New Dealer Nixon. Bush was blindsided .

 

One problem with the GOP ( Tea Party issue) I have is do they practise Free Market competive capitalism or just Big Biz slanted Capitalism ?

 

No doubt about Obama though as he is nearly 100% crony and only Chicago style wink..wink...nod..nod towards free market.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One problem with the GOP ( Tea Party issue) I have is do they practise Free Market competive capitalism or just Big Biz slanted Capitalism ?

 

To play the Derrida game, it depends on what you mean by GOP. Are you talking about guys like DeMint, or guys like Trent Lott? Since the Dems much prefer the Rs that believe in Business as Usual and Go Along to Get Along, the MSM prefers them too. So the RNC tends to be controlled by the squishes, and we get guys like DeLay and Lott in senior leadership.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All very slanted, OT. Why do we separate 1973-76 from 1979-82? To me they are the same recession with a very slow recovery, most akin to today's pattern. These things don't conform to presidential terms, as one can see with the 1921 'depression' dealt with above. The fed printed money in 1973-74, the inevitable inflation ensued and was brought under control by the Reagan spending spree of 1992 [the record jump in natl debt to date in %], which was necessary to reduce record unemployment and very high inflation [that you and I enjoyed so much!].

 

Four year terms such as Carter's and Bush I likely did not count for anything of note in the national economy, as was also the case for Harding, Hoover.

 

I doubt that oil has caused any recession as a single cause. It is always out there. Bush II was in the soup already by the summer of 2001, was saved by massive spending in domestic, military and the attempted funding of his 'no expense is too much to keep America safe' politics. And you call it a quick recovery? You would have toccredit FDR with fixing the Gt Depression by that criteria.

 

As usual, I am skeptical of the taxonomy you introduce, so convenient for praising or dissing one party or the other as somehow more skilled. I think it as reliable as who has the best tailors, GOP of course!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One problem with the GOP ( Tea Party issue) I have is do they practise Free Market competive capitalism or just Big Biz slanted Capitalism ?

 

To play the Derrida game, it depends on what you mean by GOP. Are you talking about guys like DeMint, or guys like Trent Lott? Since the Dems much prefer the Rs that believe in Business as Usual™ and Go Along to Get Along™, the MSM prefers them too. So the RNC tends to be controlled by the squishes, and we get guys like DeLay and Lott in senior leadership.

 

Who or what is the 'we' above?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ken:

* 1992 slowdown as result of Cold War ending and DoD cuts which was just normal economics. But Clinton handles like a GOP'er eventually.

This recession was over Leftist spin and LW rhetoric about it being the worst econoy in 50 years notwithstanding, when Carvel uttered the line, "It's the economy, stupid", the recession was over and in full blown recovery. Nothing Bush did changed that...what Bush did do is ignore the fact that just because a recession is over, it doesn't mean it doesn't still feel like a recession. Leftist love to say that Clinton merely showing up at 1600 PA Avenue on 20 January 1993 was all the economy needed for recovery. The simple truth is that the economy had been in growth for two solid years when Clinton was inaugarated, and the growth was holding steady at 3% during the entire presidential election campaign (November 1991-November 1992).

 

What Clinton did do was not mess it up too bad, he inherited an economy ripe for a boom and took every ounce of credit for something which was a very natural economic cycle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What Clinton did do was not mess it up too bad, he inherited an economy ripe for a boom and took every ounce of credit for something which was a very natural economic cycle.

 

Letes not forget his pivoting back to the left during Feb 1993-Oct 1994 helped bring the Republican Revolution to the House, which severely restrained Dem stupidity for the rest of the decade. Unintentional, and counter to his plans, but unbelievably effective. And Clinton was smart enough and disciplined enough to pull a Mayor Quimby and sprint up ahead of the parade so that he could take credit for the good things that happened in the late 1990s.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All very slanted, OT. Why do we separate 1973-76 from 1979-82? To me they are the same recession with a very slow recovery, most akin to today's pattern. These things don't conform to presidential terms, as one can see with the 1921 'depression' dealt with above. The fed printed money in 1973-74, the inevitable inflation ensued and was brought under control by the Reagan spending spree of 1992 [the record jump in natl debt to date in %], which was necessary to reduce record unemployment and very high inflation [that you and I enjoyed so much!].

 

Four year terms such as Carter's and Bush I likely did not count for anything of note in the national economy, as was also the case for Harding, Hoover.

 

I doubt that oil has caused any recession as a single cause. It is always out there. Bush II was in the soup already by the summer of 2001, was saved by massive spending in domestic, military and the attempted funding of his 'no expense is too much to keep America safe' politics. And you call it a quick recovery? You would have toccredit FDR with fixing the Gt Depression by that criteria.

 

As usual, I am skeptical of the taxonomy you introduce, so convenient for praising or dissing one party or the other as somehow more skilled. I think it as reliable as who has the best tailors, GOP of course!

I separated the two seventies eras because of G. Ford in the middle. He was more a fiscal conservative than either Nixon or Carter. Remember his 3 young bulls were O'Neil , Cheney and Rumsfeld all considered RW by todays standards. Ford had the guts to veto over 40 spending bills in about 40 months. Ford's downfall was disgust with DC politics as usual , pardoning Nixon and being pro-abortion but he was a fiscal conservative.

 

You must of missed me dissing Milhouse and he was supposedly conservative and a GOP POTUS.

 

Where you and I agree/disagree is on Simpson/Bowles . You say wait until recovery , I say it's the roadmap to recovery.

 

You want the FDR/Obama wandering and wondering what's to come next. I want a plan on the table in effect and visable to all so plans can be made to move on.

 

I previously mentioned the Stone Wall collision coming Jan1st . but you down played it.

I want a plan you want meandering with too many unknowns and adjust as the base political winds and contributions indicate.

 

I would want S/B in effect Jan1,2013. It's a roadmap and a bi-partisan roadmap. Everybody would know the rules and the economy could move on.

 

P.S. Oil was a major shock to the U.S. economy all by itself more than once. The Arab oil embargo was poorly handled by Nixon as he threw price controls into the mix accelerating inflation.

Edited by Old Tanker
add
Link to comment
Share on other sites

All very slanted, OT. Why do we separate 1973-76 from 1979-82? To me they are the same recession with a very slow recovery, most akin to today's pattern. These things don't conform to presidential terms, as one can see with the 1921 'depression' dealt with above. The fed printed money in 1973-74, the inevitable inflation ensued and was brought under control by the Reagan spending spree of 1992 [the record jump in natl debt to date in %], which was necessary to reduce record unemployment and very high inflation [that you and I enjoyed so much!].

 

Four year terms such as Carter's and Bush I likely did not count for anything of note in the national economy, as was also the case for Harding, Hoover.

 

I doubt that oil has caused any recession as a single cause. It is always out there. Bush II was in the soup already by the summer of 2001, was saved by massive spending in domestic, military and the attempted funding of his 'no expense is too much to keep America safe' politics. And you call it a quick recovery? You would have toccredit FDR with fixing the Gt Depression by that criteria.

 

As usual, I am skeptical of the taxonomy you introduce, so convenient for praising or dissing one party or the other as somehow more skilled. I think it as reliable as who has the best tailors, GOP of course!

I separated the two seventies eras because of G. Ford in the middle. He was more a fiscal conservative than either Nixon or Carter. Remember his 3 young bulls were O'Neil , Cheney and Rumsfeld all considered RW by todays standards. Ford had the guts to veto over 40 spending bills in about 40 months. Ford's downfall was disgust with DC politics as usual , pardoning Nixon and being pro-abortion but he was a fiscal conservative.

 

You must of missed me dissing Milhouse and he was supposedly conservative and a GOP POTUS.

 

Where you and I agree/disagree is on Simpson/Bowles . You say wait until recovery , I say it's the roadmap to recovery.

 

You want the FDR/Obama wandering and wondering what's to come next. I want a plan on the table in effect and visable to all so plans can be made to move on.

 

I previously mentioned the Stone Wall collision coming Jan1st . but you down played it.

I want a plan you want meandering with too many unknowns and adjust as the base political winds and contributions indicate.

 

I would want S/B in effect Jan1,2013. It's a roadmap and a bi-partisan roadmap. Everybody would know the rules and the economy could move on.

 

P.S. Oil was a major shock to the U.S. economy all by itself more than once. The Arab oil embargo was poorly handled by Nixon as he threw price controls into the mix accelerating inflation.

 

I think we are close, OT, but you insist on a few things and wish to make political colors the dominant factor; would that it were true, but I suspect their tailors are more significant.

 

Yes, we need to settle the recovery first; don't forget we have to figure out the inflationary spiral and just how soft/hard the landing is going to be when Mr Bernecke pulls those trillions out of circulation. Does that sound as if I am meandering?

 

As for oil ruling, forget it, man. Tricky's [i did not forget you dissed him] 1973 recession came not just with oil [peaking at $180/bbl], but also an unpopular war, unpopular president, the Dow lost half its value in a month, and we went off the gold standard, among several more factors and conditions. Most of this sounds very parallel to the recession II of Dubya, I'd wager.

 

Please spare me any talk of Rummie, who fled town to muck with NATO when the Watergate Scandal hit, then teamed with Schlesinger to bring us the Hollow Force. Was that good economics?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ken :

 

As to tailors , I had previously mentioned GOP'er Phil Gramm and Dem Robert Rubin and both were major tailors in the mix having much influence over Clinton and Bush.

 

They were the big horses killing off Glass -Steagal of the FDR/ Joe K. Sr. era . Clinton signed it and the GOP applauded.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At least Clinton took an improving economy and did not run it into the ground. Contrast that with Dubya, o oracles of the right.

 

 

Yeah, because all those regulations added over the following years had ZERO effect upon the economy as their weight built up?

 

Ken, I'll ask you, what did Bush do that ran the economy into the ground? What policies in particular?

Edited by rmgill
Link to comment
Share on other sites

At least Clinton took an improving economy and did not run it into the ground. Contrast that with Dubya, o oracles of the right.

 

 

Yeah, because all those regulations added over the following years had ZERO effect upon the economy as their weight built up?

 

Ken, I'll ask you, what did Bush do that ran the economy into the ground? What policies in particular?

 

Well he pretty much spent trillions of $$$$, oh wait that was Obama. Sorry, carry on. :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At least Clinton took an improving economy and did not run it into the ground. Contrast that with Dubya, o oracles of the right.

 

Clinton's economy was coming unglued in 1998. There was a "stealth" bear market that was disguised by the "irrational exuberance" of the last spurt of the "dot-bomb" run up. There were plenty of stocks declining in value between 1998 and 2000.

 

The economy under President Bush took three catastrophic hits early in his term: The dot-bomb bust, the Enron Scandal, and 9-11. It did recover from there thanks to his tax cuts and the Laffer Curve assured that the government take from the income tax climbed steadily during his two terms.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At least Clinton took an improving economy and did not run it into the ground. Contrast that with Dubya, o oracles of the right.

 

Clinton's economy was coming unglued in 1998. There was a "stealth" bear market that was disguised by the "irrational exuberance" of the last spurt of the "dot-bomb" run up. There were plenty of stocks declining in value between 1998 and 2000.

 

The economy under President Bush took three catastrophic hits early in his term: The dot-bomb bust, the Enron Scandal, and 9-11. It did recover from there thanks to his tax cuts and the Laffer Curve assured that the government take from the income tax climbed steadily during his two terms.

 

And financing two wars with tax cuts? The Laffer Curve is hard science? How about the soaring national debt, Richard? We seem to have only lately had cause for worry.

 

There is no evidence that the tax cuts of 2001-03 improved the economy. The CBO reported that the national debt could be retired by 2010; guess which course of action Dubya took?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...