Unemployment Falls

FG, you're in a fantasy world. Someday you will have to quit blaming Bush for everything and understand your President's part in the economic downfall of America. He is presiding over the greatest loss of liberty, loss of economic strength, and loss of world prestige we have ever seen.

Yeah, I was excited to see him elected, I'll be even more excited when he's gone. I just won't be excited to see Romney there.

I do not live in a fantasy world.

However, I have discovered that there is not one single reality.

The reality you think you see is not the one that I see.

. . . And we choose to disagree.

I do not live in a fantasy world.

However, I have discovered that there is not one single reality.

The reality you think you see is not the one that I see.

. . . And we choose to disagree.
Originally Posted by Fast Gunn

Fast Gunn, are you trying to tell us that reality is somehow not actually reality because there's an "alternate reality" residing somewhere in your mind? For your sake, I hope you never have to rely on an attorney to convince a jury that a set of facts that's plain for everyone to see is not the "real" reality, since there's an "alternate reality" that they just don't have an active enough imagination to see!

And since when is suggesting that someone remove the partisan blinders and take a cold, hard look at facts "emotional posting?" You claimed that you no longer saw "clear objectivity" in my posts. I suggest that you go back and read what I wrote, particularly in post #59. Seems to me there's plenty of objectivity there. If you read anything there with which you disagree, let's hear it. That would beat the hell out of simply continuing to make fatuous statements!

I noticed that you guys took a pass on answering these very simple questions from just a few posts ago:

How do you think we should pay for all this spending? What sorts of taxes should be raised, when, and on whom? Do you support a VAT? Or do you think we should simply try to pay for all this largesse with borrowed and printed money forever, and simply hope against hope that nothing goes terribly wrong?

Do you think Obama was correct in completely ignoring the findings of the Simpson-Bowles commission? Don't you think he should have at least used it as a starting point to begin discussions of how we might be able to establish a glidepath to fiscal sanity? Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

Fast Gunn, why don't you take a stab at answering those very simple, straightforward questions? If you won't even do that, what point is there in further discussing this issue? If it seems to you that I don't suffer fools gladly, perhaps it's simply the case that I have little patience with people who are unable or unwilling to craft cogent arguments supporting their beliefs. You stated early in the thread that Obama is the best president we've had "in generations." Why don't you try to tell us why you believe that, including a statement of exactly what he's done in the way of policy achievements that will increase the prosperity of our nation?

And WTF, how about you? Why don't you try answering those questions? You're a big Obama supporter, aren't you? And you stepped back into this thread less than an hour ago with yet another clueless post (like post #60, where you showed that you have no understanding of the inflation of the 1980s).

Obama was hired by the voters to fix problems, not exacerbate existing ones while creating new ones of his own.

They aren't going to answer the hard questions. They think they win arguments by using multi-color fonts and calling others gay.

They aren't going to answer the hard questions. They think they win arguments by using multi-color fonts and calling others gay. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

True that!

None of these guys dare try to touch any of those questions. Facts can sometimes make people quite uncomfortable.

But I hope Fast Gunn steps back in here and tells us what he's been drinking that makes that fantasy world seem like such a happy place. It's got to be some good stuff!

Fast Gunn, are you trying to tell us that reality is somehow not actually reality because there's an "alternate reality" residing somewhere in your mind? For your sake, I hope you never have to rely on an attorney to convince a jury that a set of facts that's plain for everyone to see is not the "real" reality, since there's an "alternate reality" that they just don't have an active enough imagination to see! Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

Can you say "Johnny Cochran"!

And WTF, how about you? Why don't you try answering those questions? You're a big Obama supporter, aren't you? And you stepped back into this thread less than an hour ago with yet another clueless post (like post #60, where you showed that you have no understanding of the inflation of the 1980s).

. Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

I have answered that question many times.

Yes , I think we need to implement Bowels -Simpson.

I think when you talk about the stimulis, you never mention that half of it was tax cuts. Yes I agree with you that much of the money was ill spent. It was basically pork.


Just because I do not understand/articulate it as well as you, does not mean that you are always right. Men smarter that you are I are at odds over economic news all the time. That is wtf I meant by agreeing with Fastgunn when he said basically we can all see the exact same thing and disagree on wtf we just saw.

But the bottom line, no matter how much more versed you are on this subject is that I agree with you, Bowels-Simpson is the way out of this mess.

Bowels Simpson? Isn't that a laxative?

Can you say "Johnny Cochran"!





I have answered that question many times.

Yes , I think we need to implement Bowels -Simpson.

I think when you talk about the stimulis, you never mention that half of it was tax cuts. Yes I agree with you that much of the money was ill spent. It was basically pork.


Just because I do not understand/articulate it as well as you, does not mean that you are always right. Men smarter that you are I are at odds over economic news all the time. That is wtf I meant by agreeing with Fastgunn when he said basically we can all see the exact same thing and disagree on wtf we just saw.

But the bottom line, no matter how much more versed you are on this subject is that I agree with you, Bowels-Simpson is the way out of this mess. Originally Posted by WTF

Johnny Cochran is dead. He wouldn't do Fast Gunn much good nowadays!

Actually, about one-third of it was tax cuts. (Not one-half.) And I have mentioned that on a number of occasions. They were the sort of gimmicky refundable tax credits and temporary tax cuts that most economists of all persuasions say don't do a lot of good to stumulate the economy. G. W. Bush did the same thing in spring of 2008, even going so far as to send out checks to lower-income households. It obviously didn't do a lot to stave off recession. And most of the rest of the $800 billion was ineffective, politically-motivated spending. It did little to create (or save) jobs, or to stimulate the economy.

And I agree with you on Simpson-Bowles, as we've discussed in the past. But Obama extended his middle finger at it after having called for the commission just the year before. That's an egregious abdication of responsibilty. That's why I said earlier that it's abundantly clear that Obama has no intention whatsoever of making any tough decisions. He is only interested in winning elections, not setting a sound course for the nation. He has spent three years pursuing a political agenda, not a sound economic agenda built on a sustainable platform.

Yes, people can hold different opinions regarding politics, or almost any other issue. But consider that we have increased spending at the federal level by 20% just over the last three years, and by about 30% over the last four. Much of it is politically-motivated spending which only those in fantasy worlds such as Paul Krugman's "hallelujah chorus" believe does very much to boost the economy. (Theory undergirding beliefs in the widespread existence of fiscal multipliers greater than 1.0 has been debunked by robustness analysis in recent years. Those old neo-Keynesian macro models do not work in the real world.) We have had a spotty, feeble "recovery" since the NBER called the end of the recession in midyear 2009. In fact, year-over-year GDP growth and job creation have both been far weaker than was the case during every other recovery since World War II. It is true that the recovery following financial crises is often more prolonged and difficult than that following typical cyclical recessions, but history has shown that they are generally not as feeble as today's recovery unless impeded by the application of inapproprate government interventions.

Those are not opinions. They are simple facts.

Alternate reality, anyone?

Say what??

When did the Reagan administration "inflate its way out" of anything? The opposite is the case. Reagan correctly let Paul Volcker (a Carter appointee in 1979) continue to do the tough work needed to crush the back of inflation in 1981-83. As you recall, the requisite monetary tightening necessitated a severe recession in 1981-82, but after that inflation remained quiescent.

! Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

Really? Ronnie just knew that Volker was the man? Well it seems that the people there at the time were not quite so sure. They would have fired him if he politically could have.


http://xpatriatedtexan.com/blog/2008...t-a-reagan-man


For some reason, The Hotline is calling Paul Volker “Reagan’s Fed Chair“. They note that he was first appointed by Carter, but still call him “Reagan’s”. I’m a bit baffled by this. Take this explanation of Volker’s tenure as Fed Chair:

Little wonder Reagan liked Paul Volker so much. He had already made the unpopular but necessary decisions required to tame out-of-control inflation under Jimmy Carter and the inflation arc that had been building for about a decade before Carter took office was already showing signs of coming under control by the end of Reagans second year in office.
Oh, and, of course, Reagan really liked the idea that he would get the credit for the hard decisions Carter made in choosing the right person for the right job of Fed Chairman at the right time (to his political detriment) while he had to make virtually no unpopular decsions with respect to inflation and interest rates.

Except it isn’t even that. As Time Magazine noted at the time:

While Volcker was surprised at the timing [of his reappointment], he was expecting the nod, and so was Wall Street. The stock market, which not long ago dropped sharply when it seemed that Volcker might be replaced, resumed its happy rise last week. Spurred in part by the growing conviction that the Fed Chairman’s job was safe, the Dow Jones industrial average rose 46 points, its second largest weekly gain this year, and reached a record high of 1242.19.

The markets were tanking because Reagan was considering dumping Volker. Reappointing Volker gave Reagan the second largest stock-market gain of the year.

What is Volker’s opinion of why Reagan didn’t criticize him? It isn’t hard to find out:

I saw him from time to time, but I was not a close intimate of President Reagan’s. His entourage in the White House, or certainly in the Treasury, were very critical at times. They were… kind of a funny mixture. They had monetarist doctrine, supply-side doctrine, libertarian doctrine all mixed together, so some of it wasn’t terribly coherent, which helped me a bit. There was unhappiness because there was a big recession early in his term, and things were not really stable.

Volker’s action was to raise interest rates to cut the money supply in order to raise the value of money – which would stop inflation. Reagan’s action was to boost deficit spending and give tax breaks – both of which increase the money supply andtherefore reduce the value of money – which is felt as inflation. Volker and Reagan were taking opposing actions.

Johnny Cochran is dead. Ho wouldn't do Fast Gunn much good nowadays!

. Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

Well there is a Johnny Cochran born ever minute to replace him!

Actually, about one-third of it was tax cuts. (Not one-half.) And I have mentioned that on a number of occasions. They were the sort of gimmicky refundable tax credits and temporary tax cuts that most economists of all persuasions say don't do a lot of good to stumulate the economy. G. W. Bush did the same thing in spring of 2008, even going so far as to send out checks to lower-income households. It obviously didn't do a lot to stave off recession. And most of the rest of the $800 billion was ineffective, politically-motivated spending. It did little to create (or save) jobs, or to stimulate the economy. Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

I agree with that. I have agreed with you on Bowels Simpson. That is the only way out of this mess. They have already started by cutting Defense Spending or as the say slowing the arc!

They are going to have to raise taxes and cut spending....over a long time period. Will they do it is the question. Is our form of government able to do something before it becomes a crisis? I have my doubts.

Bowels Simpson? Isn't that a laxative? Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Your mouth is the end result of a fast acting laxative...

Maybe you are talking about Bowles-Simpson. You must have a fixation with bowels as well. Therapy, seriously, therapy.

They are going to have to raise taxes and cut spending....over a long time period. Will they do it is the question. Is our form of government able to do something before it becomes a crisis? I have my doubts. Originally Posted by WTF

I do, too.

Both parties have become "free lunch" parties. George W. Bush pushed through big tax cuts for the middle class, and Obama has done more of the same. And nobody seems to have the will to do anything at all about entitlement, budget, or tax reform, while spending has been careening out of control for the last ten years.

That's why I believe we're heading for a crisis that will make September 2008 look like a pleasant day at the beach by comparison. If we continue sticking our heads in the sand like ostriches, I think that's already baked into the pie.

WTF, what the hell is up with that bizarre blog you linked in post #85? Apparently you're trying to defend your earlier assertion that we "inflated" our way out of debt under Reagan. That's obviously not what happened, since inflation rapidly declined after 1981-82 and remained quiescent thereafter, as I pointed out. And if you had paid attention, you would have noticed I said that Reagan let Volcker do the difficult work of breaking the back of inflation in 1981-83. By '83, that work had been done and inflation had been subdued. Reagan could have appointed a more accommodating Fed chair in 1983, but he did not, and I do not disagree with his decision. But the key point is that by then the inflation crisis was over.

And since when do tax cuts increase inflation when accompanied by aggressive monetary tightening? That's about the silliest thing I ever read. (For that matter, the causative relationship between tax cuts and inflation is tenuous under virtually any set of circumstances, as much research has shown.) The guy has no idea what he's talking about. Should that surprise you? After all, he doesn't even know how to spell Volcker's name, let alone cogently explain anything about the tax or monetary policy practiced during his chairmanship. (He misspelled it in the title as well as repeatedly throught his blog post.)

All you posted was a few non sequiturs having nothing to do with your erroneous assertion that we "inflated" our way out of debt in the 1980s.

All you posted was a few non sequiturs having nothing to do with your erroneous assertion. Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

i have to laugh because there is a brain disconnect with WTF that doesnt allow him to ever respond on point