Shouldn't Conservatives Be Cheering?

[Magox]

In a Dumb in Norfolk kind of way.

It actually does increase consumer spending. Don't be an ignorant hard head.

 

 

The question that rational people pose is was it worth it? The argument from the white house is "It would of been much worse, we would of had 13% unemployment". Well that is not quantifiable, and frankly the ones who believe it are either economists who called for such keynesian stimulus beforehand, and for the sake of not wanting to appear that they were totally wrong with their reputations at stake, come out with this statement (example Mark Zandi), and of course the partisan lemmings. The reality is that most people believe it was a failed economic stimulus,I made my case years ago that it would fail, and outlined it in detail why it would.

 

Temporary spending stop gaps would only buy time, the problem with the economy are structural ones, and that can not soley be fixed with keynesian solutions.

 

I'm not a black or white sort of dude, I'm not gonna tell you that Keynesian economics doesnt have a place in helping bridge the gap in tough times, because it can. THe proble with the Obama stimulus was that there weren't any real substantive structural solutions, hence the economy.

 

Of course government cuts slow down the economy in the short-term, it' a painful process, I'd rather not see people lose their jobs, but it's a necessary evil that has to be done. Why? Because it is part of the problem, part of the reason that is adding to our debt, not just on the federal level but also state and local governments as well. We all get so caught up on Federal taxes, but much of the tax increases we all receive come from the state and local goverment levels. Why? Because of an overbloated government and unfunded pension liabilities that were engineered in an unexcusable fashion between public union leaders and the politicians who were corrupted by their money in order to get their campaign funds to protect their seats.

Edited September 6, 2011 by Magox

[3rdnlng]

It actually does increase consumer spending. Don't be an ignorant hard head.The question that rational people pose is was it worth it? The argument from the white house is "It would of been much worse, we would of had 13% unemployment". Well that is not quantifiable, and frankly the ones who believe it are either economists who called for such keynesian stimulus beforehand, and for the sake of not wanting to appear that they were totally wrong with their reputations at stake, come out with this statement (example Mark Zandi), and of course the partisan lemmings. The reality is that most people believe it was a failed economic stimulus,I made my case years ago that it would fail, and outlined it in detail why it would.

 

Temporary spending stop gaps would only buy time, the problem with the economy are structural ones, and that can not soley be fixed with keynesian solutions.

 

I'm not a black or white sort of dude, I'm not gonna tell you that Keynesian economics doesnt have a place in helping bridge the gap in tough times, because it can. THe proble with the Obama stimulus was that there weren't any real substantive structural solutions, hence the economy.

 

Of course government cuts slow down the economy in the short-term, it' a painful process, I'd rather not see people lose their jobs, but it's a necessary evil that has to be done. Why? Because it is part of the problem, part of the reason that is adding to our debt, not just on the federal level but also state and local governments as well. We all get so caught up on Federal taxes, but much of the tax increases we all receive come from the state and local goverment levels. Why? Because of an overbloated government and unfunded pension liabilities that were engineered in an unexcusable fashion between public union leaders and the politicians who were corrupted by their money in order to get their campaign funds to protect their seats.

 

I would hope that you were being sarcastic. I don't disagree with what you are saying. Government spending can increase consumer spending but not overall demand. The money that the government spends has to come from somewhere, so while it might help in the short run it doesn't help in the long run. In fact, the administrative costs of that spending may actually makes things worse----------in the long run.

[Magox]

I would hope that you were being sarcastic. I don't disagree with what you are saying. Government spending can increase consumer spending but not overall demand. The money that the government spends has to come from somewhere, so while it might help in the short run it doesn't help in the long run. In fact, the administrative costs of that spending may actually makes things worse----------in the long run.

No I wasnt being sarcastic, the question posed was "does it increase consumer demand" and the answer is yes. Some keynesian policies are more successful than others, perfect example would be the Chinese Stimulus of 08-09. That Stimulus program worked wonders and it made much more sense for them than it did us. Why? Because they didnt have structural problems, their economy slowed down as a result as of the global economy slowing down, so they gave an injection of liquidity to their economy and voilaaaa, off to the races. Whereas our economy has structural problems, so all it did was give a temporary boost.

[3rdnlng]

No I wasnt being sarcastic, the question posed was "does it increase consumer demand" and the answer is yes. Some keynesian policies are more successful than others, perfect example would be the Chinese Stimulus of 08-09. That Stimulus program worked wonders and it made much more sense for them than it did us. Why? Because they didnt have structural problems, their economy slowed down as a result as of the global economy slowing down, so they gave an injection of liquidity to their economy and voilaaaa, off to the races. Whereas our economy has structural problems, so all it did was give a temporary boost.

 

When I said "in a Dumb in Norfolk kind of way" I was referring to the situation as it stands right now. Yes it might increase consumer spending now but it could certainly decrease consumer demand down the road. Cash for Clunkers and income tax credits for downpayments on a house ain't going to help this economy.

[Jauronimo]

I was trying to make a subtle joke by alluding to previous disagreements between, well, everyone and Dave in Norfolk. I guess it was so subtle that it wasn't even funny.

 

I also thought it was commonly accepted now that priming the pump in recession times may kick start spending but the shift in consumer demand necessary for economic expansion, will only come via organic employment growth. Gov't spending does not create permanent jobs. I'm always surprised to see the opposing view.

[3rdnlng]

I was trying to make a subtle joke by alluding to previous disagreements between, well, everyone and Dave in Norfolk. I guess it was so subtle that it wasn't even funny.

 

I also thought it was commonly accepted now that priming the pump in recession times may kick start spending but the shift in consumer demand necessary for economic expansion, will only come via organic employment growth. Gov't spending does not create permanent jobs. I'm always surprised to see the opposing view.

 

How many people bought cars on the "Cash for Clunkers" deal that wouldn't have bought them sooner or later?

[Jauronimo]

How many people bought cars on the "Cash for Clunkers" deal that wouldn't have bought them sooner or later?

Are we arguing? I could have sworn we had similar views on the matter?

[DC Tom]

Are we arguing? I could have sworn we had similar views on the matter?

 

It's PPP. Even agreement is argumentative.

 

Can't handle it? Then take up knitting, ya pansy.

[3rdnlng]

Are we arguing? I could have sworn we had similar views on the matter?

 

Of course we have similar views on the subject. I just wish you weren't so obstinate about it!

[OCinBuffalo]

Temporary spending stop gaps would only buy time, the problem with the economy are structural ones, and that can not soley be fixed with keynesian solutions.

 

I'm not a black or white sort of dude, I'm not gonna tell you that Keynesian economics doesnt have a place in helping bridge the gap in tough times, because it can. THe proble with the Obama stimulus was that there weren't any real substantive structural solutions, hence the economy.

I believe that there were substantive structural solutions. I know Clinton applied them. The trouble is: when used properly they decrease union membership. Or, they put workers to work in fields where there is major competition for their skills, therefore, unions are irrelevant. But, Obama doesn't want that. He is for change....backwards. He, and the rest of these clowns, want to go back to 1965, and pretend it's 1965.

 

Had Hillary won they would have never bothered with health care, they would have done massive training and re-tooling instead, just like Bill did his after own health care debacle. We'd be well on our way to another boom. We all should have listened to PastaJoe.

Edited September 8, 2011 by OCinBuffalo

[Magox]

I believe that there were substantive structural solutions. I know Clinton applied them. The trouble is: when used properly they decrease union membership. Or, they put workers to work in fields where there is major competition for their skills, therefore, unions are irrelevant. But, Obama doesn't want that. He is for change....backwards. He, and the rest of these clowns, want to go back to 1965, and pretend it's 1965.

 

Had Hillary won they would have never bothered with health care, they would have done massive training and re-tooling instead, just like Bill did. We'd be well on our way to another boom.

There would be no Boom no matter who was president. The deleveraging process is a long and painful one, and there are no quick fix solutions. Housing is still in the doldrums and the public sector is still cutting back, and no one could of done anything about it, at least not in the proper way that would of yielded "booming" sort of results by now. As a matter of fact, the conservative solutions are more for longer-term prosperity and very likely we would of seen just as weak if not a weaker economy than what we had seen in the first two years because of the deep cuts that many conservatives were clamoring for. It flies in the face of all logic to have deep cuts in spending and expect to have an economy stronger in the short-term.

 

You can't have it both ways, at least not from a logical perspective, to expect to take a significant amount of money out of the economy and voilaaaa expect to have "booming" growth. That's just not logical, and I don't care how you want to spin it, it still won't be logical.

 

As I said before a long time ago, there are no sustained quick fix solutions, pain has been and will be in the forecast for the foreseeable future, and the best thing we can hope for is to take away some of these nonsensical regulations that are doing more harm than good, attempt to repatriate all that money that is sitting overseas, improve trade relations with countries that ARE growing, lower corporate tax rates to make us more competitive with all our competitors, invest in retraining America for the future and look to help support the economy with some stimulus so we don't fall off a cliff.

Edited September 8, 2011 by Magox

[Jauronimo]

There would be no Boom no matter who was president. The deleveraging process is a long and painful one, and there are no quick fix solutions. Housing is still in the doldrums and the public sector is still cutting back, and no one could of done anything about it, at least not in the proper way that would of yielded "booming" sort of results by now. As a matter of fact, the conservative solutions are more for longer-term prosperity and very likely we would of seen just as weak if not a weaker economy than what we had seen in the first two years because of the deep cuts that many conservatives were clamoring for. It flies in the face of all logic to have deep cuts in spending and expect to have an economy stronger in the short-term.

 

You can't have it both ways, at least not from a logical perspective, to expect to take a significant amount of money out of the economy and voilaaaa expect to have "booming" growth. That's just not logical, and I don't care how you want to spin it, it still won't be logical.

 

As I said before a long time ago, there are no sustained quick fix solutions, pain has been and will be in the forecast for the foreseeable future, and the best thing we can hope for is to take away some of these nonsensical regulations that are doing more harm than good, attempt to repatriate all that money that is sitting overseas, improve trade relations with countries that ARE growing, lower corporate tax rates to make us more competitive with all our competitors, invest in retraining America for the future and look to help support the economy with some stimulus so we don't fall off a cliff.

I think the Republican agenda would have been more conducive to ecoconomic growth than what we are seeing now. If only in an addition by subtraction sort of way. We would likely see less regulation on Wallstreet, less taxation, and we would not have Obamacare which has thrown a wrench in the works since businesses cannot reasonably predict future costs. Job growth will be shaky at best until businesses have some idea of what employees will cost them down the road. Small businesses are especially weary of how universal wealth redistribution...err healthcare, will affect their bottom line.

 

I don't think we would be witnessing a booming economy by any means, but we would likely see more stable job growth. But what the hell do I know?

[Magox]

I think the Republican agenda would have been more conducive to ecoconomic growth than what we are seeing now. If only in an addition by subtraction sort of way. We would likely see less regulation on Wallstreet, less taxation, and we would not have Obamacare which has thrown a wrench in the works since businesses cannot reasonably predict future costs. Job growth will be shaky at best until businesses have some idea of what employees will cost them down the road. Small businesses are especially weary of how universal wealth redistribution...err healthcare, will affect their bottom line.

 

I don't think we would be witnessing a booming economy by any means, but we would likely see more stable job growth. But what the hell do I know?

By no means am I defending Obama's economic policies, well because ummmmm, there is really isn't much to defend, at least not from an intrinsic POV. The only defense they have is that the economy "would of been worse" had it not been for his policies, and most people don't agree. The only one's who do as I said earlier are either economists who with zeal defended the stimulus before it passed and for the sake of not wanting to look bad are sticking with their guns and the partisan puppets. That's it!

[OCinBuffalo]

There would be no Boom no matter who was president. The deleveraging process is a long and painful one, and there are no quick fix solutions. Housing is still in the doldrums and the public sector is still cutting back, and no one could of done anything about it, at least not in the proper way that would of yielded "booming" sort of results by now. As a matter of fact, the conservative solutions are more for longer-term prosperity and very likely we would of seen just as weak if not a weaker economy than what we had seen in the first two years because of the deep cuts that many conservatives were clamoring for. It flies in the face of all logic to have deep cuts in spending and expect to have an economy stronger in the short-term.

 

You can't have it both ways, at least not from a logical perspective, to expect to take a significant amount of money out of the economy and voilaaaa expect to have "booming" growth. That's just not logical, and I don't care how you want to spin it, it still won't be logical.

 

As I said before a long time ago, there are no sustained quick fix solutions, pain has been and will be in the forecast for the foreseeable future, and the best thing we can hope for is to take away some of these nonsensical regulations that are doing more harm than good, attempt to repatriate all that money that is sitting overseas, improve trade relations with countries that ARE growing, lower corporate tax rates to make us more competitive with all our competitors, invest in retraining America for the future and look to help support the economy with some stimulus so we don't fall off a cliff.

I never said cut anything. And, we are talking Democrats in charge of everything from 2008 to at least 2010, so they were going to spend money no matter what. So cutting wasn't a realistic expectation.

 

What I did say: specifically focus on retraining workers whose skill sets are too common, or less necessary, and give them skill sets that are just the opposite. Adult education. Yes, I know that it wouldn't create jobs as quickly as we like, but, we'd be in a hell of a lot better position now than we are if we had spent on this instead of simply throwing money away on the unions and only delaying the massive public sector cuts that had to happen anyway, and did happen anyway.

 

There are tons of jobs in IT, nursing, etc. that are there no matter what, and have been this whole time. Yes, I know few people can be programmers, however, we always need support people, we always need hardware guys. I don't want to do that crap(cause it's beneath me ), and they make pretty decent money. The make crazy money compared to retail, or construction workers-->housing.

 

Instead of trying to fix structural employment from a Rube Goldberg, monetary minutiae perspective...why not hit it head on fiscally? It's not like you can't get both small and big business to sign up to hire somebody that they only have to pay 10?...20?% of their training costs.

 

Oh...that's right...Obamacare. Never mind.

Edited September 8, 2011 by OCinBuffalo

[Magox]

I've had the worst Precious metals trading over the past week than I've ever had. I don't believe I have ever seen 3 major reversals occur within a 10 day trading period and almost a fourth. No basing periods or nothing, just whipsaw action. Typically you see a key reversal every 3-4 months or so. Crazy

[Nanker]

Some people when hired, think they're entitled to a job for life and their boss owes them a decent living with cost of living raises in perpetuity.

If that fails, they expect the government to fill in the gaps, e.g., "free" cell phone, housing, food, education expenses, walking around money, etc.

Other people are realistic.

[DC Tom]

I've had the worst Precious metals trading over the past week than I've ever had. I don't believe I have ever seen 3 major reversals occur within a 10 day trading period and almost a fourth. No basing periods or nothing, just whipsaw action. Typically you see a key reversal every 3-4 months or so. Crazy

 

I played with gold for a couple of weeks after Congress did their whole debt limit dance. I'm REALLY glad I'm just sitting and watching now.

[Peace]

I played with gold for a couple of weeks after Congress did their whole debt limit dance. I'm REALLY glad I'm just sitting and watching now.

 

There is a website I frequent that is all PM traders. It's been a frenzied few months. And the juniors are mostly out of sync with the POG. I have both won big on the juniors recently (GSS) and lost big (HL, silver miner). Mostly though, I'm like Magox, I've left the last few months in some pain.

[Magox]

There is a website I frequent that is all PM traders. It's been a frenzied few months. And the juniors are mostly out of sync with the POG. I have both won big on the juniors recently (GSS) and lost big (HL, silver miner). Mostly though, I'm like Magox, I've left the last few months in some pain.

I believe this where you put less emphasis on the short-term charts and take a look at it from a couple steps back and go more with the 4 hour/daily charts. Look to buy near the recent lows and sell some as you get near the highs. This 1800-1920 area has killed me

[Peace]

I believe this where you put less emphasis on the short-term charts and take a look at it from a couple steps back and go more with the 4 hour/daily charts. Look to buy near the recent lows and sell some as you get near the highs. This 1800-1920 area has killed me

 

Maybe. I have a little money I set aside for speculative trading, and sometimes that money is in metals-related stuff in really short horizon trades.

 

Outside the metals, the speculative stock that slayed me this year was Kodak. Despite it being a dog and having a poison pill built in, I was sure all the patent-hype and its huge patent portfolio would give it a bounce. I was wrong.