November 4th, 2010, 10:21 AM #1
Now that Republicans have control of the house...
- Where are the jobs?
- Why isn't the economy fixed yet?
- Why is there still a deficit?
- Why isn't the recession over yet?
What is going on here? What country was John Boehner born in?
November 4th, 2010, 11:33 AM #2
well to be fair... if you knew anything they have no power now. But when they actually take power they will only have added the ability to apply the brakes, not steer or step on the gas. so their ability will be far different than that of a party with control of the gas pedal, break pedal and steering wheel.
to be fair to the democrats they did not have a bullet proof control of the three branches so they were not able to fully implement their ideas either.
But they came as close as possible to having complete control. The republicans only impared it like a single shot of wiskey. it was measurable but by no means incapacitating.
Through the Bush years there was never a seriously controlled congress, Clinton had similar problem with being in complete control.
Barak is the only president in recent times to have had the whole shooting match signed sealed and delivered
Kennedy and Johnson had it pretty good. other than them I don't think either party has really been able to push an agenda with impunity.
Of course even with said power you saw america enter unpopular war.
Carter (just sucked) democrats he had decided control of congress and still sucked.
Regan pushed by force of personality one house. As I recall his presidency he actually was pretty powerful considering his lack of congressional mandate.
Clinton blew in the wind what ever direction it went (ultimately you might give republicans a great deal of responsibility for the clinton's years success because clinton followed rather than led.
Bush slim majority (by no means conservative agenda) (I don't want to count him as a republican I rate him up there with Carter.
Obama only 2 years but had substantial control of congress.
November 4th, 2010, 11:40 AM #3Never send to know for whom the bell tolls . . .
November 4th, 2010, 11:50 AM #4
defaulting and devaluing are pretty close to the same thing to the person holding the note.
If we take their 14 trillion dollars and turn it into 1 trillion with hyper inflation they are just as screwed as if you defaulted on 13 trillion dollars
Default keeps em from investing again for a while. this might be good because it results in genuine reduction in entitlements
Hyper inflation alows you to simply continue the course of overspending.
it is like a poor person who keeps taking loans at higher and higher rate you still are in the same hole but it keeps getting deeper until you cant even reach the ladder any longer.
November 4th, 2010, 12:17 PM #5
You seem to be a 100% black or white kind of thinker here. I have a news flash for you. Few things in life are that simple. The world has many colors in the spectrum, including countless shades of grey.Never send to know for whom the bell tolls . . .
November 4th, 2010, 12:25 PM #6
November 4th, 2010, 12:28 PM #7
Voogru, would you buy an asset today knowing that next year it'll be worth less? If you can put off the purchase, you will wait. In aggregate, this action will cause huge problems. Deflation is dangerous. Some price inflation is good along with commensurate income inflation.
November 4th, 2010, 12:39 PM #8Originally Posted by voogru
If I'm in the market for a new iPhone and I think a newer model will come out in 3 months that will have better features and the same price, there's a good chance I'll wait.
If I know a new line of processors is coming out in a few months, I may delay my PC purchase.
I was recently in the market for a new flatscreen television. Instead of buying an LED TV, I have decided to buy an LCD TV instead and buy an LED down the road when they are cheaper, sacrificing LED goodness in the name of value.
When gas prices are high or at all volatile, people routinely try to manipulate their driving habits and fill up dates in order to maximize value, changing their lifestyles in the name of value and savings.
Originally Posted by voogru
Why am I even asking? Of course you don't.
How do 1800 - 1913 and 1913 - 2010 compare in terms of "prosperity"?
Last edited by brandon184; November 4th, 2010 at 12:44 PM.
November 4th, 2010, 12:52 PM #9
What a long list of excuses to account for your lack of knowledge on the simplest of economic principles.
Your statements are all about "most people". What data do you have to back this up, or are we, as always, just supposed to take your word as gospel because you're such a self-proclaimed brilliant god?
November 4th, 2010, 01:07 PM #10
Never send to know for whom the bell tolls . . .
November 4th, 2010, 01:09 PM #11
November 4th, 2010, 01:16 PM #12
Regarding your ridiculous examples, you either understand the economics, or you don't. You can either explain it, or you can't. And since you cannot, perhaps you need to go back to school and get a proper education that allows you to operate on the same wavelength as everyone else. You're the one always crying and bitching about how you don't get the respect you deserve despite the fact that you only have a fifth grade education, but you make absolutely zero effort to get any credibility by backing up your claims or being accountable for the statements that you make.
It doesn't matter if you have a 3rd grade education or a masters degree from an ivy league school. If you don't hold yourself accountable for the statements you make, you will always look like a complete and total idiot. If you want to "educate others", you need credibility. A nice first step in getting that credibility would be to grow up and hold yourself accountable.
November 4th, 2010, 01:26 PM #13
And who cares if I object to what you say? If you actually believe what you post, you shouldn't care about someone objecting to it, and you should be happy to defend it.
November 4th, 2010, 01:31 PM #14
Amazon.com: Principles of Economics (9780324589979): N. Gregory Mankiw: Books: Reviews, Prices & more
It's $157.80, but sometimes "doing homework" is expensive. Have a nice day!
November 4th, 2010, 01:32 PM #15
November 4th, 2010, 01:34 PM #16
November 4th, 2010, 01:38 PM #17
I'm getting into this late and I see the topic is "Now that Republicans have control of the house..." but it's been derailed into a topic about monetary policy.
Getting back to page one, there are some important decisions to be made soon. Two million people will run out of unemployment benefits next month if Congress fails to act in the coming weeks. Will the Democrats extend the benefits and the Republicans stop it in the Senate? Once the new session begins, there is no hope of extending benefits.
It was mentioned that the debt ceiling needs to be raised soon. Some are against it saying that it will cause hyperinflation. These people are the same people that have been warning of inflation (wrongly) for some time. Earlier this year, annual inflation was 2.7 percent. Today, itís 1.1 percent. They are the same people who think markets are always right. Interest on ten year T-bills are 2.5%, which means that money managers do not predict hyperinflation.
But getting back to the topic, what is the Republican House going to do to create jobs?Conservatives: "If the facts disagree with our opinion, ignore the facts -- or at least misrepresent them."
November 4th, 2010, 01:42 PM #18
November 4th, 2010, 01:47 PM #19
I think his economic understanding is pretty sound. What is not known is what the tipping point is when people completely fail to trust your money. I believe we are in a bubble right now, borrowing money to pay for daily needs as we outspend our income continuously.
At some point someone is going to call us on it either by demanding their money or charging us more to borrow. If we continue to let spending outpace our income then you eventually have an acceleration of the cost to borrow. Entitlements in america will at somepoint need to be payed for. There is no serious tax rate that wont negatively impact the economy. Even most democrats realize this.
i don't know if hyper inflation is on it's sooner or later but I feel we are on a path that intersects with it within my lifetime and probably alot sooner than I would like.
My dad's retirement is in jeopardy AFAIAC. Not having much savings I probably will not be crushed by it if it happens sooner.
BTW I am not sure what real value inflation has (it is expected). it is one of these things where it is expected, and people get their 2% raise every year but I am not sure I understand the negative aspect of getting paid a salary that remains the same unless I change my value.
If I can buy a loaf of bread for 200 years for $1.60 and my house costs $200,000 to replace for 100 years, what is the down side?
What is the value in 1 dollar being able to buy less every year?
November 4th, 2010, 01:55 PM #20
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
By Vagabond in forum Multimedia and AudioReplies: 1Last Post: December 13th, 2009, 11:43 AM
By JimRune in forum IMO CommunityReplies: 14Last Post: April 21st, 2006, 11:27 PM
By djm1k0 in forum IMO CommunityReplies: 9Last Post: March 23rd, 2006, 06:21 PM
By Theophylact in forum IMO CommunityReplies: 6Last Post: February 23rd, 2004, 08:31 PM
By M_Six in forum IMO CommunityReplies: 7Last Post: November 10th, 2003, 02:12 PM