-
- freeman2
- Dignitary
-
- Posts: 1573
- Joined: 19 Dec 2000, 4:40 pm
10 Oct 2012, 10:05 am
Here is the supposedly biased organization that was polled by the economist:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_B ... c_ResearchIt seems like a very prestigious organiation with a lot of influence, but no particular reason that those economists who belong to it would be Democrats as opposed to being Republican. The question is why there would be such a predominance of Democrats over Republicans among the most prestigious economists in the country. Hmmm....
And, by the way, the national Association for Business Economics, the supposedly less partisan group, are basically economists affiliated with big companies (so presumbably they would be tilted towards favoring business).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_A ... _Economics Yet, the make-up of that group was equal numbers of Republicans and Democrats.
The fact that there are so many Democrats are among these two groups of economists is very surprising. If most economists are Democrats, are we just going to say that their opinions are biased?
-
- Ray Jay
- Ambassador
-
- Posts: 4991
- Joined: 08 Jun 2000, 10:26 am
10 Oct 2012, 10:43 am
Freeman, are you at all concerned that HuffPo reported the Economist article in a very partisan matter, and that now you and many others are echoing those comments without all the Economist disclaimers and context? It seems to me that you are just looking for stuff that confirms your existing biases as opposed to fully understanding the issues. (Of course, we all do that, but this seems very transparent if you do a little bit of self relfection.)
-
- Doctor Fate
- Ambassador
-
- Posts: 21062
- Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am
10 Oct 2012, 10:58 am
freeman2 wrote:Oh wait, cutting PBS funding, the only cut Romney could think of at the debate . . .
Funny, you really want to debate who "could think" during the debate?
In any event, you're wrong. Pardon me for actually resorting to
what Romney actually said rather than your caricature:
What things would I cut from spending? Well, first of all, I will eliminate all programs by this test — if they don't pass it: Is the program so critical it's worth borrowing money from China to pay for it? And if not, I'll get rid of it. "Obamacare" is on my list. I apologize, Mr. President. I use that term with all respect.
PRESIDENT OBAMA: I like it.
MR. ROMNEY: Good. OK, good. (Laughter.) So I'll get rid of that. I'm sorry, Jim. I'm going to stop the subsidy to PBS. I'm going to stop other things. I like PBS. I love Big Bird. I actually like you too. But I'm not going to — I'm not going to keep on spending money on things to borrow money from China to pay for it. That's number one.
Number two, I'll take programs that are currently good programs but I think could be run more efficiently at the state level and send them to state.
Number three, I'll make government more efficient, and to cut back the number of employees, combine some agencies and departments. My cutbacks will be done through attrition, by the way.
Would you care to rephrase or extend your insipid remarks?
Oh wait, cutting PBS funding, the only cut Romney could think of at the debate, is going to balance the budget...That is the point of mentioning Big Bird--the ridiculousness of Romney talking about cutting funding for public television when it a minuscule part of the budget (and popular)
No, the point of it is that Obama doesn't want to talk about serious matters, like the lies he and his Administration told in Libya or his abysmal record, so he's running ads that actually, if one thinks, bring to mind one stark truth: Obama and Holder have done next to nothing in terms of punishing the bad actors on Wall Street. What about his buddy Corzine?
-
- Doctor Fate
- Ambassador
-
- Posts: 21062
- Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am
10 Oct 2012, 11:02 am
freeman2 wrote:And, by the way, the national Association for Business Economics, the supposedly less partisan group, are basically economists affiliated with big companies (so presumbably they would be tilted towards favoring business).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_A ... _Economics Yet, the make-up of that group was equal numbers of Republicans and Democrats.
Are you still talking about the article from the Economist? See, I read it. That's the problem. The second group was 22/22 with 56 "decline to state." You have no idea what that means and neither do I. They could be arch-conservatives or communists or anything in between.
The fact that there are so many Democrats are among these two groups of economists is very surprising. If most economists are Democrats, are we just going to say that their opinions are biased?
Nope, but if you choose, in a Presidential election season, to survey mostly liberal economists, should it shock you that they like the liberal view?
-
- Ray Jay
- Ambassador
-
- Posts: 4991
- Joined: 08 Jun 2000, 10:26 am
10 Oct 2012, 11:16 am
Romney per Dr. Fate:
What things would I cut from spending? Well, first of all, I will eliminate all programs by this test — if they don't pass it: Is the program so critical it's worth borrowing money from China to pay for it? And if not, I'll get rid of it.
I really like this test. When deciding any expenditure (foreign aid, military, domestic) I think this is the right approach because ultimately we are not currently paying for our expenditures. In isolation, it's hard to be against supporting NPR or aid to Israel or heroic medical efforts, or the next weapons system, or a raise to social security recipients, but if we openly admit that the expenditure will result in additional debt for our children to eventually pay to China with interest, it clarifies our thinking.
-
- danivon
- Ambassador
-
- Posts: 16006
- Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am
10 Oct 2012, 11:21 am
Hmm. I'm pretty sure a lot of US debt is actually owned by Americans. Who (along with many others all over the world) are investing in US bonds - at pretty much very low interest rates at the moment.
Frankly, I'm less impressed by an Economist survey than I am by the IMF statements, showing that they know now what people were telling them before about multipliers.
-
- Ray Jay
- Ambassador
-
- Posts: 4991
- Joined: 08 Jun 2000, 10:26 am
10 Oct 2012, 11:29 am
danivon wrote:Hmm. I'm pretty sure a lot of US debt is actually owned by Americans. Who (along with many others all over the world) are investing in US bonds - at pretty much very low interest rates at the moment.
You are right that much is owned by Americans. We do owe over $1 trillion to the government of China which is the most of any country. Japan is not far behind.
-
- Doctor Fate
- Ambassador
-
- Posts: 21062
- Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am
10 Oct 2012, 11:35 am
danivon wrote:Hmm. I'm pretty sure a lot of US debt is actually owned by Americans. Who (along with many others all over the world) are investing in US bonds - at pretty much very low interest rates at the moment.
True, but we can only borrow so much for so long, even at near-zero. At some point, the rates go up and our budget goes bust. That's why we have to start trimming everywhere.
I am hopeful that, as a businessman, Romney will (if elected) look into how our military contracts are structured. I am convinced by secondhand info (from excellent and trusted sources) that we could save a lot of money in terms of procurement and R & D.
Frankly, I'm less impressed by an Economist survey than I am by the IMF statements, showing that they know now what people were telling them before about multipliers.
I am concerned about the proliferation of claims about multiplier effects. Why? Because we have Congressmen spouting off about unemployment being "stimulative" because of the "multiplier effects" and similar claims are made about food stamps. At some point, you have to ask yourself, "Well, why don't we just print even more money and give it all away?--that should really get things going." It's a bit tough to know how seriously to take all the claims of "good" in government largess.
-
- freeman2
- Dignitary
-
- Posts: 1573
- Joined: 19 Dec 2000, 4:40 pm
10 Oct 2012, 12:35 pm
Is it possible for you to post without insulting people, df? Seriously, you call yourself a Christian and it is really sad if you think your behavior represents the teachings of Jesus Christ. Ok I forgot Romney mentioned obamacare and referenced some vague test--not exactly cause for saying my remarks were insipid Just because you can google things does not make your "analysis" superior . If you can't discuss things in a civilized manner why don't you just stay silent?
-
- bbauska
- Administrator
-
- Posts: 7463
- Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm
10 Oct 2012, 12:49 pm
I suppose he could have said it nicer.
I suppose you could have been more truthful.
Seems like a wash, but the facts about the debate have more impact upon the economic trends than Steve's personality.
-
- Doctor Fate
- Ambassador
-
- Posts: 21062
- Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am
10 Oct 2012, 12:51 pm
freeman2 wrote:Is it possible for you to post without insulting people, df?
What part was insulting? The part where I pointed out you were making stuff up?
So, the next time you say something insulting should I presume it's because you're an agnostic, Buddhist, or a worshiper of Diana?
Ok I forgot Romney mentioned obamacare and referenced some vague test--not exactly cause for saying my remarks were insipid
Well, they were insipid AND inaccurate. If you believe Romney said cutting PBS funding "is going to balance the budget," you're being more than inaccurate. It's a bit like the Big Bird commercial Obama is now running--it's flat-out insulting to any sentient being. No one believes that and Romney didn't say it.
Just because you can google things does not make your "analysis" superior . If you can't discuss things in a civilized manner why don't you just stay silent?
Look, if I was going to post something like "Obama says we can balance the budget by putting a surtax on chocolate," I would look it up before I posted it.
That you caricatured Romney is not my fault and it's not like you don't post your own share of vitriol.
-
- danivon
- Ambassador
-
- Posts: 16006
- Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am
10 Oct 2012, 2:53 pm
Doctor Fate wrote:I am concerned about the proliferation of claims about multiplier effects. Why? Because we have Congressmen spouting off about unemployment being "stimulative" because of the "multiplier effects" and similar claims are made about food stamps. At some point, you have to ask yourself, "Well, why don't we just print even more money and give it all away?--that should really get things going." It's a bit tough to know how seriously to take all the claims of "good" in government largess.
Did you read the IMF report I linked to? It wasn't particularly gung-ho, and it does not say that multiplier effects are always >1. But it has observed that they have been of that order over the past few years, and there are reasons for it. The IMF are not particularly partisan, and have tended to be more pro-austerity and anti-spending.
Ignore the Congressmen, and look at the data, before deciding whether the claims are wrong or not.
-
- freeman2
- Dignitary
-
- Posts: 1573
- Joined: 19 Dec 2000, 4:40 pm
10 Oct 2012, 5:30 pm
In retrospect, my reaction to your comments DF was a bit over the top (and I shouldn't have made references to your religion). But I am a bit like the Kevin Kline character in a Fish Called Wanda--don't call me stupid.
-
- Doctor Fate
- Ambassador
-
- Posts: 21062
- Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am
10 Oct 2012, 8:58 pm
Noted, appreciated, and a very funny movie.
Please note my comment was about your comment, not you.
-
- danivon
- Ambassador
-
- Posts: 16006
- Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am
01 Nov 2012, 9:15 am
ADP payroll report - 158,000 jobs added (above expectations)
Labor Dept initial jobless claims - 363,000 (slightly better than expected)
ISM factory index up 0.2 points to 51.7 (was expected to fall by 0.7 points to 51)
Good-ish news for the US economy. ADP figures have been questioned in the recent past, but this report is the first to have been produced since a revision assisted by Moody's. Tomorrow we'll see if they are a better predictor of the official figures (and how good those are).
