5 of 11
5
What Reganomics has accomplished.
Posted: 28 September 2013 03:39 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 61 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3333
Joined  2011-11-04
Bryan - 28 September 2013 01:12 PM
TimB - 26 September 2013 05:18 PM

Blaming falling wages on Obama?  Hmmm.

Obamanomics is better than Reaganomics even if wages are stagnant under the former because ... I dunno, because Republicans are to blame for whatever economic indicators might suggest Obamanomic isn’t working so well?

 

Snidely implying that I am saying that Republicans are to blame for any and every poor economic indicator, does not effectively add to your argument.

 Signature 

As a fabrication of our own consciousness, our assignations of meaning are no less “real”, but since humans and the fabrications of our consciousness are routinely fraught with error, it makes sense, to me, to, sometimes, question such fabrications.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 September 2013 04:00 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 62 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3333
Joined  2011-11-04

I can’t seem to reply to Bryan’s points in individual posts, my attempts are resulting in lost posts due to indications of “spam”.

 Signature 

As a fabrication of our own consciousness, our assignations of meaning are no less “real”, but since humans and the fabrications of our consciousness are routinely fraught with error, it makes sense, to me, to, sometimes, question such fabrications.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 September 2013 04:08 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 63 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3333
Joined  2011-11-04

Must be a message from God that Bryan is right… or perhaps that I shouldn’t waste my time responding to his posts.

 Signature 

As a fabrication of our own consciousness, our assignations of meaning are no less “real”, but since humans and the fabrications of our consciousness are routinely fraught with error, it makes sense, to me, to, sometimes, question such fabrications.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 September 2013 04:16 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 64 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  15435
Joined  2006-02-14
TimB - 28 September 2013 04:00 PM

I can’t seem to reply to Bryan’s points in individual posts, my attempts are resulting in lost posts due to indications of “spam”.

It may be due to problems with links you provide. We’ve had discussions about this in the past: if a link doesn’t work, try splitting it up so someone can enter it manually, or a link shortener like bit.ly. (They will provide you with shortened links).

If you don’t have any links, then the spam filter may be keying off of words you are using in the post. Try rewording. Unfortunately the spam filter is a black box so I have no idea how it works.

Also the forum software does sometimes just have glitches, particularly with some browsers. (I think IE seemed to be problematic for Occam, IIRC).

 Signature 

Doug

-:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:-

El sueño de la razón produce monstruos

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 September 2013 04:20 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 65 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3349
Joined  2007-11-21
TimB - 28 September 2013 03:39 PM
Bryan - 28 September 2013 01:12 PM
TimB - 26 September 2013 05:18 PM

Blaming falling wages on Obama?  Hmmm.

Obamanomics is better than Reaganomics even if wages are stagnant under the former because ... I dunno, because Republicans are to blame for whatever economic indicators might suggest Obamanomic isn’t working so well?

 

Snidely implying that I am saying that Republicans are to blame for any and every poor economic indicator, does not effectively add to your argument.

What’s my argument?

My argument is that your argument looks weak because it’s ignoring inconvenient truth.  You can address the weakness or dismiss it by saying that pointing it out doesn’t strengthen my argument.  I’d prefer you address the weakness.  How are the results of Obamanomics better than Reagonomics with real wages and unemployment figured in?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 September 2013 04:44 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 66 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4576
Joined  2008-08-14

I have a question.
What are Obamanomics?
Isn’t Obamanomics just a largely unchanged continuation of Bush Economic Policy?
What are some specific Obama economic policies?
Last I heard Wall St. was doing well.  I’m assuming that is because of the largely unchanged economic policies of George Bush.
Obama or the next President is not going to be able to create jobs of any significance until legislation is passed that
has a protectionist tinge to it.
Bryan mentions “innovation”.  What innovation?  Business and Money innovation?
What do you predict is going to be the next innovation that creates millions of jobs that last until retirement?
The main job creator in this country since 1880 or so was manufacturing.
That’s gone.
What innovation is going to bring millions of jobs?
The only innovation I have seen in the past 20 years is businesses “innovating” their workforces overseas
and importing foreign made goods by the Ocean full!
NAFTA and CAFTA and SAFTA, to name a few! That’s innovation. That’s why we have a trade deficit!
That’s why we have millions of unemployed people!

Oh, it’s not you say?  Then what innovation is going to put millions of people back to good paying jobs that last until retirement?

 Signature 

Row row row your boat gently down the stream.  Merrily Merrily merrily merrily life is but a dream!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 September 2013 04:48 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 67 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3349
Joined  2007-11-21
VYAZMA - 28 September 2013 04:44 PM

I have a question.
What are Obamanomics?

Pretty sure he’s talking to you, TimB.

Oh, wait.  There’s this:

Bryan mentions “innovation”.  What innovation?  Business and Money innovation?

All kinds.  Innovation that stimulates buying.  The latest popular Apple toy.  Flat screen televisions.  The new car everyone needs.  Cost-effective renewable energy (the kind that competes effectively without subsidies).

What do you predict is going to be the next innovation that creates millions of jobs that last until retirement?

I predict that an Idaho entrepreneur will develop a zombie theme park that will draw millions of tourists annually to the greater Boise area.

Just kidding.  I’m not the Amazing Criswell, and it is my belief that innovation is largely unpredictable.  You can’t count on it.  You can’t make it happen by throwing money at it, even though the availability of capital encourages it.  Yet at the same time, if you don’t get innovation a less robust economy results.  Entrepreneurs are always trying to guess at or develop the next big thing.  Some succeed and make money.  Others fail and lose money.  We owe the existence of a robust economy to the successful ones.

The main job creator in this country since 1880 or so was manufacturing.

Right, and that’s not going to be the case except in cases where the domestic labor force is, on balance, more cost-effective than in foreign countries.  One strategy nations use to deal with the loss of labor jobs is to boost the presence of higher job skills in the general population.  President Obama talks about that one quite a bit.  Unfortunately students in the U.S. are more interested in cultural studies degrees than in engineering or the like.  A degree in cultural studies does little to sustain the presence of domestic manufacturing.

[ Edited: 28 September 2013 05:03 PM by Bryan ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 September 2013 04:51 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 68 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4576
Joined  2008-08-14
Bryan - 28 September 2013 04:48 PM
VYAZMA - 28 September 2013 04:44 PM

I have a question.
What are Obamanomics?

Pretty sure he’s talking to you, TimB.

No, I’ll take all comers.  Go with it Bry.

 Signature 

Row row row your boat gently down the stream.  Merrily Merrily merrily merrily life is but a dream!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 September 2013 08:23 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 69 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3333
Joined  2011-11-04
dougsmith - 28 September 2013 04:16 PM
TimB - 28 September 2013 04:00 PM

I can’t seem to reply to Bryan’s points in individual posts, my attempts are resulting in lost posts due to indications of “spam”.

It may be due to problems with links you provide. We’ve had discussions about this in the past: if a link doesn’t work, try splitting it up so someone can enter it manually, or a link shortener like bit.ly. (They will provide you with shortened links).

If you don’t have any links, then the spam filter may be keying off of words you are using in the post. Try rewording. Unfortunately the spam filter is a black box so I have no idea how it works.

Also the forum software does sometimes just have glitches, particularly with some browsers. (I think IE seemed to be problematic for Occam, IIRC).

I had a link so that must have been the problem.

 Signature 

As a fabrication of our own consciousness, our assignations of meaning are no less “real”, but since humans and the fabrications of our consciousness are routinely fraught with error, it makes sense, to me, to, sometimes, question such fabrications.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 September 2013 01:52 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 70 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3333
Joined  2011-11-04
VYAZMA - 28 September 2013 04:44 PM

I have a question.
What are Obamanomics?
Isn’t Obamanomics just a largely unchanged continuation of Bush Economic Policy?
What are some specific Obama economic policies?...

(I have the same problems as you re: Obama’s lack of effective action to curb abuses by the financial industry.)

“Obamanomics” is a subtle dig at Obama’s economic successes and lack thereof.  It is, however, IMO, superior to Reaganomics in that it has not been transformed into a simplistic dogmatic ideology (one disingenuously based on an unproven theoretical formula, i.e. the Laffer Curve).  If you look closely at all at the Laffer Curve, you will see that it could just as well be used to justify tax increases, in order to optimize revenue, even now, should some Huckster wish to do so.)

Obama’s economic policies, like most of his policies, are pragmatic rather than ideological.  See the American Jobs Act proposed two years ago but never voted on by Congress. According to independent analysis, it “would have created 1.9 million jobs and boosted growth by two percent if passed when originally introduced”. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rep-frederica-wilson/american-jobs-act_b_3639181.html

It appears to me that the Tea Partisan/Republican controlled House will never allow any meaningful job promotion legislation, as long as there is a chance that Obama may get credit for any positive economic gains.

Far from being the far left winger he is made out to be (perhaps because of advocating tax increases on those who are doing well) Obama has proposed and signed into law significant cuts in spending. http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2012/12/11/president-obamas-record-and-proposals-cutting-spending  Spending under Obama has grown 1.4% annually (lowest rate since Eisenhower) compared to well over 8% annually under Reagan.  (An irony of Obamanomics is that Obama has pushed for reasoned spending cuts during a recession, yet he is known to many Americans as a Socialist threat.) 

Reaganomics had the advantage of Reagan being “the Great Communicator”.  He was facile in promoting his simplistic jingoistic and disingenuous economic message. (Perhaps because that is the only kind of message most Americans take the time to process.)  Obama OTOH is stymied often times by his pragmatism which can be a complex approach, indeed, sort of like the real world. Reagan just had to say “Cut taxes and the economy will grow”.  Of course he failed to say “Increase spending and the economy will grow.”  Though he did dramatically increase spending. And he did not try to explain the intricacies of when cutting taxes may enhance revenue and when cutting taxes will probably not (according to the Laffer Curve, upon which Reaganomics is purportedly based).

[ Edited: 29 September 2013 02:13 AM by TimB ]
 Signature 

As a fabrication of our own consciousness, our assignations of meaning are no less “real”, but since humans and the fabrications of our consciousness are routinely fraught with error, it makes sense, to me, to, sometimes, question such fabrications.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 September 2013 04:04 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 71 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3349
Joined  2007-11-21
TimB - 29 September 2013 01:52 AM

“Obamanomics” is a subtle dig at Obama’s economic successes and lack thereof.  It is, however, IMO, superior to Reaganomics in that it has not been transformed into a simplistic dogmatic ideology (one disingenuously based on an unproven theoretical formula, i.e. the Laffer Curve).  If you look closely at all at the Laffer Curve, you will see that it could just as well be used to justify tax increases, in order to optimize revenue, even now, should some Huckster wish to do so.)

There’s not much doubt the “Laffer Curve” is legit.  The problem is figuring out where it bends and how and whether it changes as conditions change.  But the economics of Reagan goes back much further than the Laffer curve, including the ideas of Hayek (Hayek won a Nobel Prize for economics just as did Keynes before him).

Obama’s economic policies, like most of his policies, are pragmatic rather than ideological.

Hmmm.  I doubt that.  On the surface, the stimulus package is straight Keynesianism.  But looking at the details its boilerplate liberalism once you get past some tax cuts.  I’ll grant that I’d have little problem with working on infrastructure projects if the projects were actually ready to go (Keynesian stimulus is supposed to short term stuff, not an ongoing program), but most of the infrastructure stuff was fixing old things rather than building new things that help spur innovation.  Obama blew the rest of his election honeymoon popularity on health care reform.  Businesses have (wisely) focused on how to deal with that law instead of focusing on growth and innovation.  The focus on health care damaged the recovery and moved us closer to a slow-growth/high unemployment European economy.

See the American Jobs Act proposed two years ago but never voted on by Congress. According to independent analysis, it “would have created 1.9 million jobs and boosted growth by two percent if passed when originally introduced”. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rep-frederica-wilson/american-jobs-act_b_3639181.html

Growth based on Keynesian models.  The reality of the results of the 2009 stimulus bill ought to inject some doubt into the accuracy of those models.

It appears to me that the Tea Partisan/Republican controlled House will never allow any meaningful job promotion legislation, as long as there is a chance that Obama may get credit for any positive economic gains.

We spiked the budget way up high for two years and couldn’t get the unemployment rate much under 8 percent.  You want to keep doing that until it finally works?  Even most Keynesians regard accumulated debt as a potentially huge economic problem (Paul Krugman’s one of the exceptions).  But Krugman’s condemned the administration’s policies as an epic failure.  Europe’s Keynesians were deficit and debt hawks.  Not that they succeeded in instituting any kind of “austerity” that solved their looming fiscal crises coming on the backs of their welfare states.

Far from being the far left winger he is made out to be (perhaps because of advocating tax increases on those who are doing well) Obama has proposed and signed into law significant cuts in spending. http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2012/12/11/president-obamas-record-and-proposals-cutting-spending  Spending under Obama has grown 1.4% annually (lowest rate since Eisenhower) compared to well over 8% annually under Reagan.  (An irony of Obamanomics is that Obama has pushed for reasoned spending cuts during a recession, yet he is known to many Americans as a Socialist threat.)

You’ve been bamboozled on this one.  Measuring Obama’s budget increases by annualized increase is very misleading.  It’s misleading because the increase during his administration is frontloaded and backloaded (spending programs that don’t really take off until later).  FY2009 was sky high and according to budget tradition goes on Bush’s record.  But 2009 was an anomaly.  A huge hunk of that spending came in the form of loans to various financial institutions and the vast bulk of it has been paid back over time.  The repaid money counts as “negative spending” that makes subsequent budgets appear smaller than they are.  You get a much more accurate picture of spending by averaging the overall increase by four-year terms.  Even putting all the 2009 spending on Bush, Obama’s spending increase is (narrowly) the highest rate since Eisenhower.  Think about that annualized rate.  Double spending in your first year, cut that increase down by half the next year and then cut down to the original level for the next two years and you end up with a miniscule annualized rate (about 17 percent annually).  But the truth is you spent a bunch.  Play with some numbers experimentally and you’ll quickly see what I mean.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 September 2013 05:43 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 72 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4576
Joined  2008-08-14
Bryan - 28 September 2013 04:48 PM

All kinds.  Innovation that stimulates buying.  The latest popular Apple toy.  Flat screen televisions.  The new car everyone needs.  Cost-effective renewable energy (the kind that competes effectively without subsidies).

What’s holding innovation back right now like you claimed?  Is it ok if we buy the Chinese made Solar panels for renewable energy?
They’re probably made with subsidies.
But the good news is they are made with workers who get paid $3.oo an hour.  Do you think we should find an innovative way to get people to make solar panels here in the US for $3.oo an hour? That way we can be competitive and “innovative”.

I predict that an Idaho entrepreneur will develop a zombie theme park that will draw millions of tourists annually to the greater Boise area.

Just kidding.  I’m not the Amazing Criswell, and it is my belief that innovation is largely unpredictable.  You can’t count on it.  You can’t make it happen by throwing money at it, even though the availability of capital encourages it.  Yet at the same time, if you don’t get innovation a less robust economy results.  Entrepreneurs are always trying to guess at or develop the next big thing.  Some succeed and make money.  Others fail and lose money.  We owe the existence of a robust economy to the successful ones.

From your earlier posts I thought you had insightful ideas on why innovation is being smothered under Obama and how if it wasn’t then innovation could raise us up out of this recession.  I guess I was wrong.

Right, and that’s not going to be the case except in cases where the domestic labor force is, on balance, more cost-effective than in foreign countries.  One strategy nations use to deal with the loss of labor jobs is to boost the presence of higher job skills in the general population.  President Obama talks about that one quite a bit.  Unfortunately students in the U.S. are more interested in cultural studies degrees than in engineering or the like.  A degree in cultural studies does little to sustain the presence of domestic manufacturing.

I will have to get back to this last paragraph.  Gotta go.  Some interesting points.

 Signature 

Row row row your boat gently down the stream.  Merrily Merrily merrily merrily life is but a dream!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 September 2013 09:24 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 73 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3349
Joined  2007-11-21
VYAZMA - 29 September 2013 05:43 AM

What’s holding innovation back right now like you claimed?

http://www.centerforinquiry.net/forums/viewreply/186804/

Is it ok if we buy the Chinese made Solar panels for renewable energy?
They’re probably made with subsidies.

Yes, the Chinese subsidize their solar panels, and we offer subsidies to those who purchase and use them.

But the good news is they are made with workers who get paid $3.oo an hour.  Do you think we should find an innovative way to get people to make solar panels here in the US for $3.oo an hour? That way we can be competitive and “innovative”.

Subsidies don’t count as much of an innovation.  China gives up a portion of its benefit from selling solar panels by subsidizing them.  We double the foolishness by subsidizing purchases from China’s subsidized market.  But it’s not that bad an idea to buy Chinese on solar panels if you’re getting a good value.  I’m hearing that China’s efforts to make its products cheaply have resulted in a flawed product that goes bad prematurely.  Bad products aren’t worth as much as good products.  So, in answer to your question, buy Chinese solar panels if and only if you’re getting a good value.  Take advantage of their subsidies.  The drawback comes from the fact that solar power is also subsidized in the U.S.  If solar power was more cost-effective then the picture would change (the innovation we’re waiting on is a superior system for storing the energy).

From your earlier posts I thought you had insightful ideas on why innovation is being smothered under Obama and how if it wasn’t then innovation could raise us up out of this recession.  I guess I was wrong.

Maybe you didn’t do such a great job of framing your question.  You asked me to predict the next big innovation.  The answer is different if you ask what smothers innovation.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 September 2013 12:11 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 74 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4576
Joined  2008-08-14
Bryan - 29 September 2013 09:24 AM
VYAZMA - 29 September 2013 05:43 AM

What’s holding innovation back right now like you claimed?

http://www.centerforinquiry.net/forums/viewreply/186804/

Where does this go?  Can you answer my question without a link? What’s holding back innovation?
The innovation you said you can’t predict or make sense of.
What’s holding back that innovation?

Is it ok if we buy the Chinese made Solar panels for renewable energy?
They’re probably made with subsidies.
Bryan-
Yes, the Chinese subsidize their solar panels, and we offer subsidies to those who purchase and use them.

I’m confused. You don’t like American subsidies, but you are willing to buy Chinese Subsidized Solar Panels?
Because you just previously said “renewable energy, as long as it isn’t subsidized”.

But the good news is they are made with workers who get paid $3.oo an hour.  Do you think we should find an innovative way to get people to make solar panels here in the US for $3.oo an hour? That way we can be competitive and “innovative”.
Bryan-
Subsidies don’t count as much of an innovation.

  Great!  What counts as an innovation?  And again; how is this innovation that is being smothered going to uplift the economy that you are so disappointed with?
And you didn’t even touch upon the question here.

From your earlier posts I thought you had insightful ideas on why innovation is being smothered under Obama and how if it wasn’t then innovation could raise us up out of this recession.  I guess I was wrong.
Bryan-
Maybe you didn’t do such a great job of framing your question.  You asked me to predict the next big innovation.  The answer is different if you ask what smothers innovation.

I asked you two different questions Bryan.  Keep up and switch gears!
If you would like I can go back and cite the 2 questions contained in 2 adjoining posts. 
The first question had a follow up comment/question. Hence 2 questions.
Please just request and I’ll be happy to point them out for you.
Do you still wish to take a crack at the question: “What’s smothering innovation?”, or would you like to further obfuscate?
Try not to post another reply that leads to another post in this thread.

[ Edited: 29 September 2013 12:14 PM by VYAZMA ]
 Signature 

Row row row your boat gently down the stream.  Merrily Merrily merrily merrily life is but a dream!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 September 2013 12:59 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 75 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3333
Joined  2011-11-04
Bryan - 29 September 2013 04:04 AM
TimB - 29 September 2013 01:52 AM

“Obamanomics” is a subtle dig at Obama’s economic successes and lack thereof.  It is, however, IMO, superior to Reaganomics in that it has not been transformed into a simplistic dogmatic ideology (one disingenuously based on an unproven theoretical formula, i.e. the Laffer Curve).  If you look closely at all at the Laffer Curve, you will see that it could just as well be used to justify tax increases, in order to optimize revenue, even now, should some Huckster wish to do so.)

There’s not much doubt the “Laffer Curve” is legit.  The problem is figuring out where it bends and how and whether it changes as conditions change.  But the economics of Reagan goes back much further than the Laffer curve, including the ideas of Hayek (Hayek won a Nobel Prize for economics just as did Keynes before him).

What Reagan espoused about Reaganomics (and what his disciples, since, dogmatically believe they are following) is quite different from the economic policies that were in reality put in place during his administration.  Reaganomics quickly turned Keynesian. 

“...(1) a penchant for continuing deficits, (2) a devotion to fiat paper money and at least moderate inflation, (3) adherence to increased government spending, and (4) an eternal fondness for higher taxes, to lower deficits a wee bit, but more importantly, to inflict some bracing pain on the greedy, selfish, and short-sighted American public. The Reagan Administration managed to institutionalize these goodies, seemingly permanently on the American scene.”  (italics mine)  http://mises.ca/posts/articles/the-death-of-reaganomics-keynesian-redux/  Was the Great Communicator a Great Bamboozler?  It seems so.

 Signature 

As a fabrication of our own consciousness, our assignations of meaning are no less “real”, but since humans and the fabrications of our consciousness are routinely fraught with error, it makes sense, to me, to, sometimes, question such fabrications.

Profile
 
 
   
5 of 11
5
 
‹‹ Service Equity      Atheists In Congress ››