Why isnt Obama listening?

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

So then, hope and change are not needed.

Most people don't apply macro thinking to their own lives. During the smaller cycles I'd think that hope and change could be beneficial to the individual, even if they are insignificant in the big picture.

-spence

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

Most people don't apply macro thinking to their own lives. During the smaller cycles I'd think that hope and change could be beneficial to the individual, even if they are insignificant in the big picture.

-spence

Up until your thoughts on the beneficence of hope and change to the individual, the discussion was at the "macro" level. And the inference was, obviously, to Obama's campaign motto and the impact of his unsustainable (in my opinion) policies on an economy that Joe feels is already unsustainable

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Up until your thoughts on the beneficence of hope and change to the individual, the discussion was at the "macro" level. And the inference was, obviously, to Obama's campaign motto and the impact of his unsustainable (in my opinion) policies on an economy that Joe feels is already unsustainable

My point is that Obama's policies won't likely influence the macro trends.

-spence

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

My point is that Obama's policies won't likely influence the macro trends.

-spence

So if the macro trends are "20 to 50 year cycles that move the flow of money up or down to bring stability (i.e. growth) over the long haul", and if this is the "mixed economy that guarantees life, liberty, and happiness," then worries of unsustainability are unwarrented, and complaints of us being inches away from an Indian style class system are delusional. And if Obama's policies won't influence these happiness guaranteeing macro trends, then his health care and stimulus initiatives are just vote getting gimmicks since, due to the macro trends, there are no actual crises that we must hurry up and fix.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

So if the macro trends are "20 to 50 year cycles that move the flow of money up or down to bring stability (i.e. growth) over the long haul", and if this is the "mixed economy that guarantees life, liberty, and happiness," then worries of unsustainability are unwarrented, and complaints of us being inches away from an Indian style class system are delusional. And if Obama's policies won't influence these happiness guaranteeing macro trends, then his health care and stimulus initiatives are just vote getting gimmicks since, due to the macro trends, there are no actual crises that we must hurry up and fix.

It's fine to be worried about unsustainable behavior, the point is that the system will more than likely correct itself. Obama's stimulus was perhaps inevitable, and I'd argue McCain would have done nearly the exact same thing. Bush, leader of the GOP was already well down the road...

-spence

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

It's fine to be worried about unsustainable behavior, the point is that the system will more than likely correct itself. Obama's stimulus was perhaps inevitable, and I'd argue McCain would have done nearly the exact same thing. Bush, leader of the GOP was already well down the road...

-spence

I'm not a fan of the "system" to which you refer--no matter who is pulling the strings--Bush, McCain, Obama, Clinton, Carter, Nixon, Johnson, FDR, Hoover . . . whoever. And I certainly do not think it is sustainable. Once started, it must continue on the same path of expansionist government intervention or collapse. The idea that a little injection of Federal money into the market to artificially kickstart it, as you hint at, is not really necessary. The system, as is known, if left to itself, will correct. The fear is that the temporary "collapse" will be too painful for many. The problem, among other things, is that it has become a habit and expectation that the inevitable "failures" must be "corrected" by government, and by the same implication, the government must be at fault. Thus, having been given, or having taken, the mantle of responsibility, the government not only begins to assume the role of director not only with injections of money, but begins to restructure the "system" with regulations, laws, penalties, tax incentives and and tax burdens so that it DOES become part of the problem. And the "system" does skew to government intervention and control. And it eventually lapses from a more natural, evolutionary process into a planned, top-down directed, more static, theoretical house of cards that constantly needs government fingers in the dike. The process is inflationary, thus creating constantly more expensive and inevitable "fixes." And it constantly heads toward that tipping point of the inevitable percentage of the economy in the government's hand being too great for the private sector to sustain.

[Backbeach Jake]

Look, scott the point that I'm trying to make is that not everyone has it as good as I and I truly hope you do. That's just a fact. I think that it's a shame we have homeless people living on the streets and in the woods in this State and this country, I think that it's a shame that soup kitchens need to exist and can't because of lack of funds. I think that it's a shame that we no longer have public schools innoculate our children as they did when I was a kid. That's WTF I'm talking about.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

I'm not a fan of the "system" to which you refer--no matter who is pulling the strings--Bush, McCain, Obama, Clinton, Carter, Nixon, Johnson, FDR, Hoover . . . whoever. And I certainly do not think it is sustainable. Once started, it must continue on the same path of expansionist government intervention or collapse. The idea that a little injection of Federal money into the market to artificially kickstart it, as you hint at, is not really necessary. The system, as is known, if left to itself, will correct. The fear is that the temporary "collapse" will be too painful for many. The problem, among other things, is that it has become a habit and expectation that the inevitable "failures" must be "corrected" by government, and by the same implication, the government must be at fault. Thus, having been given, or having taken, the mantle of responsibility, the government not only begins to assume the role of director not only with injections of money, but begins to restructure the "system" with regulations, laws, penalties, tax incentives and and tax burdens so that it DOES become part of the problem. And the "system" does skew to government intervention and control. And it eventually lapses from a more natural, evolutionary process into a planned, top-down directed, more static, theoretical house of cards that constantly needs government fingers in the dike. The process is inflationary, thus creating constantly more expensive and inevitable "fixes." And it constantly heads toward that tipping point of the inevitable percentage of the economy in the government's hand being too great for the private sector to sustain.

I don't think the bank bailout was about a little pain, but rather a real fear about the entire collapse of our economic system. The Stimulus package is more debatable, but there certainly are many economists that believe it was very influential in averting a depression or much deeper recession. That's not to say it had a favorable return of course, but soft benefits are always difficult to quantify.

As for government becoming "part of the problem" in these times...the government is already part of the system.We don't have a free market but rather a regulated free market. The American entrepreneurial spirit and freedoms make us the global engine of innovation, but left unchecked these same forces will rip us apart in the name of shareholder value.

Plus ca chance, plus c'est la meme chose.

-spence