How Can One Possibly Support Obama's Economic Policies? - Page 15

Originally Posted by SDW2001

Yeah really. That's what I was thinking. Arguing with jimmac about questions not answered is futile. In fact, most debate with jimmac is futile.

Originally Posted by Frank777

That's why I stopped almost a year ago. Really bettered the experience here at AI noticeably.

"Stop whining and get out there and look at the alternatives. This President has done an incredible job. He’s kept his promises."

One Democratic operative gasped when told of Biden’s remarks and wondered “why they would pick a fight with the base” five weeks before a midterm election that will hinge on turnout.

"If Democrats, with the White House and Congressional super-majorities, had delivered on what they had promised, and if people had jobs, no one would be whining. They have reaped what they sowed. They haven’t delivered on what they’ve promised — and instead of making the case as to why they would do if they are reelected, they are insulting people."

"We have sort of become a nation of whiners," said (McCain economic adviser Phil) Gramm. "You just hear this constant whining, complaining about a loss of competitiveness, America in decline" despite a major export boom that is the primary reason that growth continues in the economy, he said.

"We've never been more dominant; we've never had more natural advantages than we have today," he said. "We may have a recession; we haven't had one yet."

Keynesians and semi-socialists claim that "clean energy" will create jobs and net economic growth. From Al Gore to the New York Times, "green energy" is almost religious in scope, as advocates claim that not only will it give us better air and weather, but it also will be a fundamental building block of economic recovery.

To speak out against this is tantamount to treason in some quarters, and people who dissent are vilified in the media; organizers wanting California's recent "clean energy" law repealed recently were attacked by the New York Times. Indeed, it almost seems to be self-evident that a "key" to economic recovery is government "investment" in "green technologies," so anyone who might look differently at this new government-led venture not only opposes progress but new jobs as well.

The technologies leading the way in this effort include biofuels, such as corn-based ethanol and biodiesel; wind power; and solar photovoltics. Not surprisingly, Gore partners with a venture capital fund that helps to finance many of these things.

Of course, these are ventures are not profitable on their own. In other undertakings, entrepreneurs find new ways to apply existing resources in hopes of making a profit. They rarely have the luxury of being targeted for success by governing bodies; rather, they have to deal with all the roadblocks and difficulties that any business venture might find in its way.

With green technologies we have a situation in which entrepreneurs purchase various factors of production, put together a product, sell it, and then chronically fall short of making a profit. Then they lobby for subsidies or mandates. This is not the same kind of situation that faced a capital-intensive operation like Federal Express, which went five years without making a profit. The goal was to be profitable in the future, knowing the company would not receive special government benefits.

As Robert Bryce notes in his eye-opening book, Gusher of Lies, much of what proponents claim about these "new technologies" not only is untrue but will remain untrue because of the first and second laws of thermodynamics: The laws of science stand in the way of these projects ever becoming profitable on their own, and Congress cannot repeal either economic or scientific laws.

Some green energy proponents understand this, but counter that if governments limit consumer choices, people will be forced to purchase these products at prices that will make them appear profitable. That means government coercion is enlisted to create the illusion that "green technologies" are viable when in reality people must use them under threat of state-sponsored violence. One cannot build a prosperous economy on that footing.

Why can't a good that must be subsidized be the basis of an economic recovery? The answer would seem obvious on its face, but people often don't see it. The answer is based on this fact: The very presence of subsidies and targeted favors for a particular good means that the real value of the resources being used to create that good is greater than the value of the good itself. No economy can grow under such circumstances. The reality is that "green energy" actually causes the economy to contract.

Part of the misunderstanding comes because people see only one side -- new jobs being created in the subsidized industry -- but fail to see the entire picture. This hardly is limited to alternative energy -- the "broken window fallacy" permeates our body politic and even more so when we suffer economic downturns, as governments seek "solutions" that only make things worse.

If there ever were an example of the "broken window fallacy" in energy, it is the notion that "green energy" in its present circumstances will help the economy grow. That is a logical impossibility, but governments (and, sadly, many economists) don't do economic logic.

Originally Posted by jazzguru

I can't wait to see Wormhole's response on this one:

Will 'Clean Energy' Lead to Economic Recovery?

Originally Posted by Wormhole

Too long to read. It's very much working for me, thanks.

Originally Posted by jazzguru

You didn't disappoint.

Originally Posted by Wormhole

All my girlfriends tell me that too but you? I know we had gay sex yesterday but it wasn't that good.

Originally Posted by jazzguru

Another example of "moral superiority" from a "progressive".

Originally Posted by Wormhole

I have never claimed moral superiority. Pleeeeeze, if it was for me people can marry cockroaches ... oh shit they already do...

Originally Posted by Wormhole

... your wife ....

Originally Posted by jazzguru

Expanding the personal attacks to my family members, now? Really, that's a new low even for you.

Originally Posted by SDW2001

Case in point.

Waste of time.

Originally Posted by jazzguru

Same, here.

Originally Posted by Frank777

That's why I stopped almost a year ago. Really bettered the experience here at AI noticeably.

President Obama has asked Congress for an additional $50 billion in "stimulus" money to finance infrastructure projects. The theory is that the additional spending will cause businesses to boost production to meet this demand. Producers will add jobs, triggering increases in consumer spending that will ripple through the economy and fuel a stronger overall recovery.

Unfortunately, however, such government pump-priming hasn't worked in the past, and there's no reason to believe it will work now.

Sure, consumer spending accounts for approximately 70 percent of America's gross domestic product, and increases in consumer spending would provide the economy with an immediate boost. But a drop in consumer spending is not what ails the economy. In fact, as a percentage of GDP, consumer spending actually increased during the downturn, the Commerce Department's Bureau of Economic Analysis reports - from approximately 69.2 percent of GDP in the fourth quarter (October-December) of 2007 to approximately 71 percent of GDP in the April-June quarter of 2009.

So the conventional wisdom - that a sharp decline in consumer spending caused the economy's downturn - is wrong.

What did cause the downturn? The answer is: a sharp decline in private investment.

In fact, the ups and downs of the business cycle are always driven by investment spending, not by consumption spending.

When private domestic investment last peaked, in the first quarter (January-March) of 2006, it was nearly $2.3 trillion (in dollars of 2005 purchasing power), or 17.5 percent of GDP. When it hit bottom in the second quarter of 2009, it had fallen by 36 percent to $1.45 trillion, or 11.3 percent of GDP. It is still far below the 2006 peak.

By contrast, in the second quarter of this year, personal consumption was actually at an all-time high, at nearly $9.3 trillion (in 2005 inflation-adjusted dollars). If stimulating consumption were the key to an economic recovery, we would have achieved one already.

The media's focus on consumption unfortunately tempts politicians to approve "stimulus" measures aimed at pumping up this part of total spending - measures such as long extensions of unemployment insurance, aid to state and local governments to help them avoid personnel reductions, and increases in federal employee salaries.

Some economists in fact single out such measures for special praise on the grounds that such payments, because they are most likely to stimulate near-term consumption spending, have the greatest "multiplier effect."

Such arguments fail to grasp the true nature of boom-bust cycles, however, especially the central role of investment spending in driving them - and, more important, in driving long-term economic growth.

If politicians truly wish to promote genuine, sustainable recovery and long-term economic growth, they should focus on actions that will contribute to a revival of private investment, not on pumping up consumption. In the most recent quarter, gross private domestic investment was still running at an annual rate more than 20 percent below its previous peak. Net private investment was fully two-thirds below the previous peak.

To bring about this essential revival of investment, the government needs to put an end to actions that threaten investors' returns or create uncertainty that paralyzes the undertaking of new long-term projects.

Gigantic government measures such as the recently enacted health-care legislation and the financial-reform law, which entail hundreds of new regulations whose specific content, enforcement and costs are impossible to forecast with confidence, contribute to such uncertainty and encourage investors to sit on the sidelines with large cash balances, or to park their funds in safe, short-term, low-yield securities. Such tepid investments cannot support genuine recovery and sustained long-run growth.

What entrepreneurs, investors and executives await is policy stability and predictability, not more government spending, borrowing, sweeping new regulations, and heightened uncertainty.

Our crying need at present is for a robust revival of private long-term investment. Consumption-oriented government "stimulus" programs, threats of tax increases for entrepreneurs and business owners, and costly regulatory onslaughts breed fear and uncertainty and thus ensure a protracted period of economic stagnation.

Originally Posted by MJ1970

Why stimulus doesn't stimulate:

(Republican economist) Mr. Holtz-Eakin suggests a three-pronged attack. First, he would stop using the tax system to achieve social goals and change it to focus, almost obsessively, on fostering economic growth.

A more circumspect version of this view came recently from no less than Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, speaking at this summer's gathering of the world's financial elites in Jackson Hole: "Central bankers alone cannot solve the world's economic problems."

Originally Posted by jazzguru

Presidential seal falls off podium as Obama speaks

A shadow of things to come?

Originally Posted by jimmac

Stupid and off topic. This doesn't represent his policies in any form jazzy. Desperate or cheap shot.

Originally Posted by jimmac

Stupid and off topic. This doesn't represent his policies in any form jazzy. Desperate or cheap shot.

Obama told the audience that somebody in the back was really nervous, referring to the staffer who hung the seal on the front of the lectern so precariously. ...
"Someone here is really nervous. They're sweating bullets," he joked about the staffer who had attached the seal.

According to a pool report from Tuesday's event in Dayton, Biden was telling the crowd that Democrats know how to balance the budget. He said, "If I hear one more Republican tell me about balancing the budget, I am going to strangle them."

He quickly added: "To the press, that's a figure of speech."

Originally Posted by john galt

Not off topic at all, when O's policies can be summarized by his consistent propensity to fix blame:



Just another "ass to kick". Pathetic.

Originally Posted by jimmac

Well if this is what passes for conservative input on how to solve our issues in this country liberals have nothing to worry about.

Originally Posted by jazzguru

Biden Says He'll 'Strangle' Republicans



An example of the Democrats' desire to work in a spirit of mutual understanding and bi-partisanship, courtesy of the Walking Gaffe Machine.

Wasn't it the Democrats who closed up shop early in D.C. so they could campaign instead of passing a budget?

Originally Posted by jazzguru

Biden Says He'll 'Strangle' Republicans

Originally Posted by MJ1970

If what you offer is what passes for liberal input on how to solve our issues in this country, our country has a lot to worry about.

Originally Posted by MJ1970

If what you offer is what passes for liberal input on how to solve our issues in this country, our country has a lot to worry about.

Originally Posted by john galt

One wonders if the Presidential Seal jumped... or was it pushed

Originally Posted by jimmac

I haven't heard anything new from you on these issues MJ.

Originally Posted by MJ1970

Then you're not paying attention.

Originally Posted by jimmac

One wonders why you'd care? Is it really something that has any bearing on any issue?

Originally Posted by jimmac

Oh! But I have.

Originally Posted by MJ1970

Nah...it's juts fun to mock Obama since he's so mock-worthy. Not as much as you, but close.

Originally Posted by jimmac

Well since we know where your loyalties are now

Originally Posted by MJ1970

All evidence to the contrary.