Why isnt Obama listening?

[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.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by 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. ...don't want to sound obnoxious, but..is that some kind of epiphany "fact"??...no kidding 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...then by all means feel free to go out and collect some homeless people and move them into your house and see how long they stay homed..., I think that it's a shame that soup kitchens need to exist and can't because of lack of fundsthe people that visit them are probably thrilled that they exist, particularly around the holidays...and there's always the food pantries and foodstamps and countless other organizations/government agencies..or you could get a job I suppose. 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. so let's see...they serve "our children" breakfast and lunch along with before and after school programs and grief counseling, condoms... but no innoculations??? damn shame That's WTF I'm talking about.

you are mired in typical leftist soup line America sucks and it is far worse here than the crappiest third world country propoganda...that's WTF I'm talking about go back and reread your posts....

[Backbeach Jake]

I don't believe that it sucks here far more than the crappiest 3rd world country . Not at all and not by far. What I believe is that we can do a hell of a lot better than we are now, by far. After all we ARE the greatest country in the world, right? I truly believe so. Then it's time to put our money where our big mouth is. And that's not in some crook's pocket. That money, tax money, the people's money should serve the interests of the people (red citizens here), all of them. The reason we have so many on the streets jobless and homeless is that their chance at employment has either been sent overseas or overseas has been brought here. Some illegally. I don't remember in the 60s the feeling that I have now that a way of life is vanishing, or being stolen. That our government is not protecting the interests of the middle class, but rather big business. And business will tell their emplyees to their faces that they are the bitches of the company. I quit a job over that. And feel extremely lucky that I was able to quickly find a better job in less than a week. But I always have. In 40 years working I have never collected a frigging red cent from our government in umemployment insurance. Not one. But I am glad as all hell that it is there for those who need it. This country has never failed me. Others can't say that they've been so lucky. We are our brother's keepers.
BTW I regret the use of WTF in my last post, my apologies, It's not a civilized way to conduct a discussion.

[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

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

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.

I didn't say "a little pain". I said too much pain for many. I don't think there was a fear of an "entire collapse", certainly not of our "entire" economic system. The great portion of our free market will survive and correct the inevitable failures. Even you, in this thread, have said that "the system will more than likely correct itself," and that "Obama's policies won't likely influence the macro trends, that the system has 20 to 50 year cycles that bring stability over the long haul.

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.
-spence

The government has always been part of the system. The question is, how much a part should it be, and what kind of system will it be if it intrudes beyond a certain point. My earlier questions to Joe were sincere. "Is there some magical mixed economy that balances the government intrusion into the hard hearted market so that life, liberty, and happiness are guaranteed?" "Has that ever occurred?" Well, they were partially sincere. As the founders knew, these conditions could not be guaranteed, but they created a form of governance that would allow individuals to pursue their own happiness and to fight for and maintain their life and liberty. My last question to Joe asking if Obama's policies are trying to steer us back to that balanced moment was purely rhetorical. l obviously believe that huge government intrusion of massive public spending does not only obliterate any balance, but creates an even greater unsustainability than Joe fears.

How far do you go in checking shareholder value before it suppresses entrepeneurial spirit and the freedoms to innovate? And how large of a tax burden to pay for the votes of "the working class" to guarantee their unguaranteeable happiness can the entrepeneurial spirit sustain before Atlas shrugs? And what unleashed that American entrepeneurial spirit in the first place?