Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Invisusira's playground

Moderators: Aergis, Invisusira

Re: Election 2012

Postby Koatanga » Mon Sep 24, 2012 2:03 pm

aureon wrote:ps: QE3 and stimulus is the difference that happened between UK and US.
UK did some in 2009, and stopped.
US continued. Go see which one is doing better.
It's still anemic keynesian policies, if only the USA Jobs act passed...
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/17/opini ... .html?_r=0
To strenghten the point, inflation did not falter on QE1 or QE2.


I'm not an economist, so this is a genuine question, rather than a baiting post.

The US manipulates the economy by buying debt from banks. When the bailout occurred, the US gave money to the banks to prop them up.

Why not channel this money through the people? Rather than Person A defaulting on his mortgage and losing his worthless home, and having the government cover the mortgage, who not pay off, or pay down, Person A's mortgage so that the bank still gets the same amount of money, but instead of adding another vacant property to the depressed housing market, Person A retains his home and potentially has more discretionary income to circulate through the economy.

Similarly, the government could incentivise people to buy these vacant homes by offering to co-pay mortgage payments. The additional demand for housing would increase interest rates and make it worthwhile for banks to lend again.

Simply buying debt from banks has the same net effect - the government gives banks money. However, rather than giving the money directly, if it was channelled through people, those people would have more to spend at local shops, for christmas presents, on new iphones, etc., which would then stimulate the economy from the ground up a well as helping property values, and therefore overall wealth, to increase.
Retired. Koatanga, Shapely, Sultry, Doominatrix of Greenstone - Dath'Remar
Koatanga
 
Posts: 2014
Joined: Mon Nov 17, 2008 12:46 pm

Re: Election 2012

Postby Melathys » Mon Sep 24, 2012 4:43 pm

You would think the first two of the criteria to take part in the debates should be enough. If there were dozens of parties doing so, I could then understand the last one requiring 15% polling, but there isn't. So far as I can tell, there's only one other party with the organization to get a presidential candidate on enough ballots to theoretically win.

http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/Ken-Wa ... al-debates
Image
User avatar
Melathys
 
Posts: 1911
Joined: Sun Sep 23, 2007 1:08 pm

Re: Election 2012

Postby Skye1013 » Mon Sep 24, 2012 4:55 pm

"me no gay, me friends gay, me no like you call me gay, you dumb dumb" -bldavis
"Here are the values that I stand for: I stand for honesty, equality, kindness, compassion, treating people the way you wanna be treated, and helping those in need. To me, those are traditional values. That’s what I stand for." -Ellen Degeneres
"I'm not going to censor myself to comfort your ignorance." -Jon Stewart
Horde: Clopin Dylon Sharkbait Xiaman Metria Metapriest
Alliance: Schatze Aleks Deegee Baileyi Sotanaht Danfer Shazta Rawrsalot Roobyroo
User avatar
Skye1013
Maintankadonor
 
Posts: 3965
Joined: Tue May 18, 2010 5:47 am
Location: JBPH-Hickam, Hawaii

Re: Election 2012

Postby Melathys » Mon Sep 24, 2012 5:17 pm

I would post a facepalm pic, but there isn't one big enough...
Image
User avatar
Melathys
 
Posts: 1911
Joined: Sun Sep 23, 2007 1:08 pm

Re: Election 2012

Postby Malthrax » Tue Sep 25, 2012 12:10 pm

User avatar
Malthrax
 
Posts: 729
Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2009 11:23 am

Re: Election 2012

Postby Cogglamp » Tue Sep 25, 2012 1:55 pm

Koatanga wrote:
I'm not an economist, so this is a genuine question, rather than a baiting post.

The US manipulates the economy by buying debt from banks. When the bailout occurred, the US gave money to the banks to prop them up.

Why not channel this money through the people? Rather than Person A defaulting on his mortgage and losing his worthless home, and having the government cover the mortgage, who not pay off, or pay down, Person A's mortgage so that the bank still gets the same amount of money, but instead of adding another vacant property to the depressed housing market, Person A retains his home and potentially has more discretionary income to circulate through the economy.

Similarly, the government could incentivise people to buy these vacant homes by offering to co-pay mortgage payments. The additional demand for housing would increase interest rates and make it worthwhile for banks to lend again.

Simply buying debt from banks has the same net effect - the government gives banks money. However, rather than giving the money directly, if it was channelled through people, those people would have more to spend at local shops, for christmas presents, on new iphones, etc., which would then stimulate the economy from the ground up a well as helping property values, and therefore overall wealth, to increase.


First, I think the logistics of that would be a complete disaster and fraud run rampant through a cash drop like that, either on the receiving end or predatory tactics once you've been sent your big fat check.

But let's say we could get around that. At the end of the day, you're describing a short term consumer based increase in the economy. It's not a long term solution. Short term prices would rise but ultimately the sugar high would wear off. Would it possibly help? No one really knows but, I think very little of that money you're referencing would go to durable goods orders, business start ups, long term investments that would actually increase GDP or job growth.

The jobs we lost haven't come back and most likely won't come back as they were primarily financial/professional service related. They've been replaced with lower paying jobs. You can see this when looking at wage growth pre 2007 (3.3% or so) versus what we've seen the past couple of years (1.8% or so, actually turns negative when you account for inflation).

We're still in a de-leveraging economy. We never really got out of it. The baby boomer generation is beginning to ride off to the sunset. By taking their money out of growth/higher risk investments and putting it towards wealth preservation investments all while interest rates are low creates a double whammy. Lower interest rates create larger liabilities for pension funds and the lack of capital available in growth sectors inhibits growth.

Now, most investment firms are calling for people to stay in stocks but I really think that party has to come to a stop at some point. The economic fundamentals don't support the sky high prices of equities. It's being artificially inflated by "flight to safety" money as Europe/Asia looks around and can't find anything worth investing in so they dump it over here creating a frothy market. The short term bonus check you're referring too would really only exacerbate the problem. Way too many dark clouds on the horizon (fiscal cliff, Europe, China's flagging "growth", BRIC countries in general hitting a wall, etc). They may not be coming our way at the moment but when it does, it could get even uglier than it was in 2009 because we are essentially out of lives in this video game.

I would have rather seen the monetary policy gurus find a way to divert that money towards R&D instead of supporting asset prices.
Last edited by Cogglamp on Wed Sep 26, 2012 6:24 am, edited 1 time in total.
Cogglamp
 
Posts: 728
Joined: Tue Apr 26, 2011 8:04 am

Re: Election 2012

Postby Skye1013 » Tue Sep 25, 2012 5:10 pm


What celebs do/don't do based on who wins isn't really a basis for choosing who to vote for is it? I'd rank that up there with voting for the better looking one. Don't get me wrong, I'm sure people do it, but to me, it doesn't really seem like a smart way to pick.
"me no gay, me friends gay, me no like you call me gay, you dumb dumb" -bldavis
"Here are the values that I stand for: I stand for honesty, equality, kindness, compassion, treating people the way you wanna be treated, and helping those in need. To me, those are traditional values. That’s what I stand for." -Ellen Degeneres
"I'm not going to censor myself to comfort your ignorance." -Jon Stewart
Horde: Clopin Dylon Sharkbait Xiaman Metria Metapriest
Alliance: Schatze Aleks Deegee Baileyi Sotanaht Danfer Shazta Rawrsalot Roobyroo
User avatar
Skye1013
Maintankadonor
 
Posts: 3965
Joined: Tue May 18, 2010 5:47 am
Location: JBPH-Hickam, Hawaii

Re: Election 2012

Postby Brekkie » Tue Sep 25, 2012 6:33 pm

Cogglamp wrote:I would have rather seen the monetary policy gurus find a way to divert that money towards R&D instead of supporting asset prices.


I'd agree. There's that trade-off though. With stimulus, you can have speed of impact, or you can have a high multiplier, but it is difficult to get both at the same time.
Theckhd wrote:big numbers are the in-game way of expressing that Brekkie's penis is huge.
Brekkie
 
Posts: 953
Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2010 7:44 pm

Re: Election 2012

Postby Cogglamp » Wed Sep 26, 2012 6:31 am

Brekkie wrote:
Cogglamp wrote:I would have rather seen the monetary policy gurus find a way to divert that money towards R&D instead of supporting asset prices.


I'd agree. There's that trade-off though. With stimulus, you can have speed of impact, or you can have a high multiplier, but it is difficult to get both at the same time.


I don't disagree with the tradeoff. However, this is the bed we made and we've had entirely too much focus on financial/professional services over the past 20 years. R&D has become an afterthought for many companies. I really feel our short sightedness has caused this now long term problem.

It's cache, but we need a breakout "lunar event" to kick start it again because we're funding R&D in drips and drabs and it's not working.

http://www.economist.com/node/21560863

It's a short article and highlights some of the R&D issues we've had over the years.
Cogglamp
 
Posts: 728
Joined: Tue Apr 26, 2011 8:04 am

Re: Election 2012

Postby Klaudandus » Wed Sep 26, 2012 8:05 am

I think I'll start posting my political amusements here instead...

Corporations are people; Teachers, not so much.
This is coming from someone who had a dinner where he raked in 6 million dollars from a Beverly Hills dinner.
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la ... 7962.story
The Element of Forum Hyperbole
Image
---
Flüttershy - Draenei Protection Paladin, Aerie Peak
Klaudandus - BE Protection Paladin, Feathermoon (Semi-retired)
User avatar
Klaudandus
 
Posts: 11217
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 7:08 am
Location: Texas' Armpit

Re: Election 2012

Postby Fivelives » Wed Sep 26, 2012 1:25 pm

It disgusts me that people who are that stupid are allowed to be presidential candidates. I know 6 year olds that understand why airplane windows don't open.
- I'm not Jesus, but I can turn water into Kool-Aid.
- A Sergeant in motion outranks an officer who doesn't know what the hell is going on.
- A demolitions specialist at a flat run outranks everybody.
User avatar
Fivelives
 
Posts: 3110
Joined: Sat Feb 16, 2008 7:55 pm

Re: Election 2012

Postby Koatanga » Wed Sep 26, 2012 4:09 pm

Cogglamp wrote:I would have rather seen the monetary policy gurus find a way to divert that money towards R&D instead of supporting asset prices.

R&D toward what? US labour is way too expensive to produce anything domestically for sale on the world market, and things produced for the domestic market represent a net loss in trade balance as you pay foreign suppliers for some or all of the raw materials, but don't recoup any money in off-shore sales. See: auto manufacturing. If there was a global market for poorly-made, inefficient, expensive behemoths, Detroit wouldn't be dead.

R&D generally ends in a licensed product that is then produced in the East for worldwide distribution, but that opens the door to the knock-offs market, and shifts the profit to foreign manufacturing companies, with the US companies only getting royalties, not jobs.

The challenge the US faces is how to shift out of a service economy when the rest of the world is paring back on service spending in the name of cost-cutting and efficiency, and when the financial service industry basically collapsed.

I reckon the US expectation for standard of living is artificially inflated during a time of heavy spending (multiple wars) and economic downturn, and that the American people are going to have to get used to the idea of making a lot less money in order to compete on the world stage before R&D will reap any dividends in the creation of new jobs.
Retired. Koatanga, Shapely, Sultry, Doominatrix of Greenstone - Dath'Remar
Koatanga
 
Posts: 2014
Joined: Mon Nov 17, 2008 12:46 pm

Re: Election 2012

Postby Koatanga » Wed Sep 26, 2012 4:10 pm

Cogglamp wrote:I would have rather seen the monetary policy gurus find a way to divert that money towards R&D instead of supporting asset prices.

R&D toward what? US labour is way too expensive to produce anything domestically for sale on the world market, and things produced for the domestic market represent a net loss in trade balance as you pay foreign suppliers for some or all of the raw materials, but don't recoup any money in off-shore sales. See: auto manufacturing. If there was a global market for poorly-made, inefficient, expensive behemoths, Detroit wouldn't be dead.

R&D generally ends in a licensed product that is then produced in the East for worldwide distribution, but that opens the door to the knock-offs market, and shifts the profit to foreign manufacturing companies, with the US companies only getting royalties, not jobs.

The challenge the US faces is how to shift out of a service economy when the rest of the world is paring back on service spending in the name of cost-cutting and efficiency, and when the financial service industry basically collapsed.

I reckon the US expectation for standard of living is artificially inflated during a time of heavy spending (multiple wars) and economic downturn, and that the American people are going to have to get used to the idea of making a lot less money in order to compete on the world stage before R&D will reap any dividends in the creation of new jobs.
Retired. Koatanga, Shapely, Sultry, Doominatrix of Greenstone - Dath'Remar
Koatanga
 
Posts: 2014
Joined: Mon Nov 17, 2008 12:46 pm

Re: Election 2012

Postby Aubade » Wed Sep 26, 2012 4:50 pm

Fivelives wrote:It disgusts me that people who are that stupid are allowed to be presidential candidates. I know 6 year olds that understand why airplane windows don't open.



I've never seen ANYONE That stupid try to run for any elected office. Completely baffles my ind that people are voting for him.
Image
- Awbade Level 85 Human Paladin - <Tsunami> Frostmourne - Retired.
Deliriously wrote:I prefer the, "Lonely Hand Approach" (trademark pending)
User avatar
Aubade
Moderator
 
Posts: 4877
Joined: Sun Jan 18, 2009 12:51 am
Location: Tacoma, WA

Re: Election 2012

Postby Fridmarr » Wed Sep 26, 2012 5:47 pm

Klaudandus wrote:I think I'll start posting my political amusements here instead...

Corporations are people; Teachers, not so much.
Meh, lets have a little semblance of fair play here. I get that you're mostly echoing the headline of that article, but it's main stream media, so some critical thought is generally required.

First, I'd start with the notion that corporations and unions are largely considered similar entities in the political sphere. Both tend to have large amounts of resources and often lobby for short-sighted legislation which supports their interest and only their interest. So it then becomes a bit dishonest to equate a corporation with itself, while equating the teachers union with teachers. Further taking that to the next level and suggesting that Romney believes a public institution is a person, but that a private entity (the teacher) is not a person is just too much spin even for this thread.

I think it's hard not to recognize Romney's point which is pretty valid. That public employee unions do often create a conflict of interest, and it's one that has played out to the detriment of many state budgets around the country. These are an ever growing group of people that are very active in the democratic process, contributing significant sums of money to the people who are then supposed to negotiate with them on behalf of the public. I don't think any of that can reasonably refuted.

Now, I don't really agree with his solution (as generally vague as it is), if you are going to allow private funding of campaigns, then you don't get to cherry pick who it comes from, but that's a far cry from suggesting that he's saying that teachers should be personally limited in their contributions beyond the normal limits.

Edit: As for the airplane comment, I'm a bit surprised by the reaction (and the equally dumb comments people are making), but while it's certainly boneheaded I think I understand what he was getting at. Besides, it could be much worse: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zNZczIgVXjg
Fridmarr
Global Mod
 
Posts: 9668
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 1:03 am

PreviousNext

Return to Arkham Asylum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

Who is online

In total there is 1 user online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 1 guest (based on users active over the past 5 minutes)
Most users ever online was 380 on Tue Oct 14, 2008 6:28 pm

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest