What will Romney do now? Your great idol.
 

Quote:

Originally Posted by marvfox 

What will Romney do now? Your great idol.
 

What they say and what they do are almost always two different things. We do know one thing. If things get better under Romney it will be "unexpected" to the press.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jazzguru 

Romney is bought and paid for by crony-capitalist banks and corporations. He will do as he is told, just like Obama.

Well, banks and corporations are screwed anyway because oil has peaked. Gas and Coal will peak by 2020 and as everyone rushes to that States and Countries that own said Gas and Coal (only few states in the US, China, India, Canada, Australia) will boom while the rest of the world struggles with the end of cheap energy.

Malaysia for example has thrived (though corruptly) because oil and gas makes up 40% of its GDP. But Malaysian oil, like so many other countries, has peaked, so the inevitable decline of the country is now happening. The government has started to remove gasoline subsidies for the common people because consumption is hitting declining levels, and by 2020 the country will be about a nett importer.

The Middle East will peak soon or has more or less peaked, so more unrest will occur.

I can tell you in 10 years time the debate over renewable energy will be over. Because that will be the only option available.

Note also the timings of economic hardship with the decline of oil production in each country.

Never mind the debt crisis, the energy crisis is next. And it will make what we've seen look like a boom time compared to what's coming.

I now strongly call for everyone, definitely check out Western Australia. If you want a better life, consider it.

US Factory Orders Post Surprise Fall in April

Top economic experts were unexpectedly surprised at the surprisingly unexpected results that completely contradicted their expert predictions.

Why are they considered experts, again?

Ironically, the economists who consistently make accurate predictions are ignored, marginalized, and mocked by the mainstream media and the so-called "experts" who are scratching their heads right now wondering what's happening.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jazzguru 

US Factory Orders Post Surprise Fall in April

 

 

 

Top economic experts were unexpectedly surprised at the surprisingly unexpected results that completely contradicted their expert predictions.

 

Why are they considered experts, again?

 

Ironically, the economists who consistently make accurate predictions are ignored, marginalized, and mocked by the mainstream media and the so-called "experts" who are scratching their heads right now wondering what's happening.

I know we differ on what the solutions are, the role of the Fed, etc.  But putting that aside, I really do think that so much of what we're seeing is a lack of confidence.  Some of it is justified by weak fundamentals, and some of it is not.   Consider what business "sees" right now from the President:  

• A President who appears to not be in control of, well, anything.  Events seem to simply happen.  He's not seen as proactive or a strong leader.  
• A President who is committed to class warfare rhetoric and hostility towards business.   This includes both rhetoric ("boot on the throat of BP" for example), and actual policy.  New regulations alone have directly cost $46 billion.  
• Fear about the consequences and costs of the healthcare law, if it becomes fully implemented.  
• The lack of an optimistic, strong vision for the country from the President.  He is the the first President to essentially run against the capitalist system itself.  He trots out various advisors and commentators who claim he is a capitalist, but there is a huge credibility gap there.  
• The constant threat of higher taxes, and not just for the rich.  Taxmageddon is right around the corner.  This doesn't exactly inspire confidence.  

My point is that even without some of the more serious policy changes we would both like to see, a Romney presidency is likely to get us on the path to prosperity once again...even by just restoring confidence.  Our system is based on emotional confidence more than anything...and it's one thing we lack under this President. 

I'd rather have an economic system based on sound money and free markets than "emotional confidence" and the whims of a private, unaccountable banking cartel.

Whatever relief a Romney presidency might bring will be short-lived and likely attributed to the kinds of policies that got us into this mess in the first place.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jazzguru 

I'd rather have an economic system based on sound money and free markets than "emotional confidence" and the whims of a private, unaccountable banking cartel.

 

 

Whatever relief a Romney presidency might bring will be short-lived and likely attributed to the kinds of policies that got us into this mess in the first place.

That first sentence contradicts itself. You want a free market but one that is accountable? That doesn't sound free.

Quote:

Originally Posted by FloorJack 

 

That first sentence contradicts itself. You want a free market but one that is accountable? That doesn't sound free.

There is no contradiction. In a free market, banks and corporations are held accountable by the customers and are allowed to fail when customers no longer want their products/services.

Our government, however, has decided that it will forcibly take our money from us and give it to these banks and corporations to keep them running whether we want their products/services or not.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jazzguru 

I'd rather have an economic system based on sound money and free markets than "emotional confidence" and the whims of a private, unaccountable banking cartel.

 

Whatever relief a Romney presidency might bring will be short-lived and likely attributed to the kinds of policies that got us into this mess in the first place.

I really think that's a false dilemma.  Regardless of the changes in monetary policy, confidence is key in the free market.  As for a Romney presidency, we're back to the having a choice between two men argument.  The only question is which will be better.  It sounds like you're admitting Romney would be that person.  

 

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by FloorJack 

 

That first sentence contradicts itself. You want a free market but one that is accountable? That doesn't sound free.

I think he means accountable to investors and customers.  He means Too Big To Fail becomes Let It Fail Like It's Supposed To.   

Quote:

Originally Posted by jazzguru 

 

There is no contradiction. In a free market, banks and corporations are held accountable by the customers and are allowed to fail when customers no longer want their products/services.

 

Our government, however, has decided that it will forcibly take our money from us and give it to these banks and corporations to keep them running whether we want their products/services or not.

Agreed there.  I wasn't really getting into that...just the confidence point, which I think cannot be overlooked.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001 

 

I really think that's a false dilemma.  Regardless of the changes in monetary policy, confidence is key in the free market.  As for a Romney presidency, we're back to the having a choice between two men argument.  The only question is which will be better.  It sounds like you're admitting Romney would be that person.

Our current system depends on a relatively small group of wealthy, influential individuals arbitrarily deciding what interest rates will be and how much paper money to print. That will not change under Romney.

It is not the government's responsibility to run the economy in the first place.

You keep bringing up confidence. Confidence in what? If that confidence is placed in a president or government, it is misplaced and fleeting.

True and lasting confidence in the economy will only come when fallible government gets out of our way - with a return to sound money and free markets - which would essentially mean the dissolution of the Federal Reserve System. Until then, we'll continue to have these boom-and-bust cycles and the "experts" will continue to feign surprise as their own bank accounts continue grow from the giant ponzi scheme and the middle class is snuffed out of existence.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jazzguru 

 

Our current system depends on a relatively small group of wealthy, influential individuals arbitrarily deciding what interest rates will be and how much paper money to print. That will not change under Romney.

 

It is not the government's responsibility to run the economy in the first place.

 

You keep bringing up confidence. Confidence in what? If that confidence is placed in a president or government, it is misplaced and fleeting.

 

True and lasting confidence in the economy will only come when fallible government gets out of our way - with a return to sound money and free markets - which would essentially mean the dissolution of the Federal Reserve System. Until then, we'll continue to have these boom-and-bust cycles and the "experts" will continue to feign surprise as their own bank accounts continue grow from the giant ponzi scheme and the middle class is snuffed out of existence.

There is a lot to respond to there.  First, let me reiterate that confidence is key regardless of government involvement.  It's not the only thing, but it's a major factor.  By "confidence" I mean the confidence to invest one's money (or a corporation's) in that economy through purchasing goods, services, investing in the stock market, or creating jobs.  When people feel that things are getting worse or are uncertain about the future, we see a reduction in economic activity.  

It seems to me that you're claiming there would be no uncertainty or confidence problems if the government was "out of the way."  I don't believe that's true.  Granted, you may have less of the boom and bust cycle, but there would still be slowdowns and lack of confidence at times.  It's simply human nature.  

My last point is that it is unrealistic to think the government will ever completely get out of the way.   That kind of a system exists essentially nowhere on the planet, and certainly won't happen here.  What we can do is reduce the size and scope of government to make the system more free.  Either way, confidence will continue to play a role.  If government unshackles the economy by shrinking in size and scope and embracing more pro-growth policies, confidence will increase.  

Okay, so if reducing the size and scope of government will increase confidence, in what ways do you think Romney will bring that about?

Quote:

Originally Posted by jazzguru 

Okay, so if reducing the size and scope of government will increase confidence, in what ways do you think Romney will bring that about?

I only know what he claims he wants to do.  He has talked about "actually reducing" government spending as opposed to slowing its growth.  He has talked about repealing Obama programs and regulations which have strangled business.  

But again, it's about more than policy changes and more than just size and scope of government.  Romney is perceived as pro-business, pro-investment, etc.  That mere perception is likely to aid the markets.  

And just as with Obama and Bush, perception is very different from reality.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jazzguru 

And just as with Obama and Bush, perception is very different from reality.

I don't agree with that statement in this context...not at all.  What part of Romney's record, statements, etc. shows evidence that he wouldn't be pro-business?  And do you still dispute that Romney being merely perceived as very pro-business would help the overall economy?  Perception is very important in our political and economic system.  Obviously it's not more important than policy, but it's big.  

You mentioned Obama and Bush.  Let's examine that in the context of perception.  Obama was perceived (wrongly, IMO) as a uniting, transformational figure.  He was perceived as cool-headed, post-partisan and competent.  He was perceived as anti-war, but willing to defend the nation if need be...including going after terrorists.  He was perceived as having inherited a terrible economy from the Bush administration ("a big mess" to clean up).   Look how long it has taken for many people to see through their original perceptions.  Obama has governed in an exceptionally, partisan, incompetent, reactionary, divisive way.  He's broken his promise on Gitmo,  He got involved in Libya.  He's piled up debt faster than anyone could have even imagined.  The economy still sucks.  Now, many people have broken through the perception, but it's taken 3.5 years to do it...and some are still fooled.  Because perception is powerful.  

Now look at Bush:  Bush was perceived as a conservative.  He was also perceived as a war mongering unilateralist by many.  He was perceived as someone who was interested in his Big Oil friends and of course, the "rich."  In reality Bush wasn't conservative on spending at all.  After Iraq, we didn't attack anyone else and were quite multi-lateral in many respects, specifically with regards to North Korea and Iran.  The poor ended up paying less in taxes than they did before the Bush tax cuts.  Policy wise, Bush was a big government conservative who pushed for and got a new entitlement program, more domestic spending, etc.  It took several years (until say, 2006) for conservatives and moderates to see his actions free of the initial perception.  

And so we come to Romney.  First, Romney will undoubtedly make at least SOME policy changes to benefit the economy, from regulatory reform, to tax reform, to spending reductions.  But even if didn't change anything significant, Romney is perceived as being very pro-growth and pro-business. His rhetoric alone would influence the markets, businesses, and even possibly consumers.  In fact, I'll go even further:  Romney could not only do "nothing," but also SAY almost nothing.  Just the fact that he was elected over Obama would restore confidence in the above groups.  Now, that doesn't mean that would be the best thing.  I, like you, want significant changes in spending, taxation, etc.  But the point remains...perception, confidence and emotion...they are all very important to our system.  We are, after all, human beings.  It's not a surprise that our financial system would work much the way our own brains do.  

Quote:

Originally Posted by jazzguru 

Okay, so if reducing the size and scope of government will increase confidence, in what ways do you think Romney will bring that about?

I'm not sure Romney is a small government guy but at least he's not a government control guy like Obama.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001 

 

I don't agree with that statement in this context...not at all.  What part of Romney's record, statements, etc. shows evidence that he wouldn't be pro-business?  And do you still dispute that Romney being merely perceived as very pro-business would help the overall economy?  Perception is very important in our political and economic system.  Obviously it's not more important than policy, but it's big.

You are missing the point. Bush and Obama did and said whatever it took to get elected. Their campaigns, along with the crony-capitalist-controlled mainstream media, helped create a certain perception about them to ensure they received the most support from the electorate. Once elected, what they actually did was very different from what they campaigned on. Romney will be no different. He has lied about his past (like Obama), been on every side of every major issue depending on who he's talking to, and is bought and paid for by the big banks and corporations (like Obama). He will do whatever he is told. And if he starts to resist their control, he will be replaced.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jazzguru 

 

You are missing the point. Bush and Obama did and said whatever it took to get elected. Their campaigns, along with the crony-capitalist-controlled mainstream media, helped create a certain perception about them to ensure they received the most support from the electorate. Once elected, what they actually did was very different from what they campaigned on. Romney will be no different. He has lied about his past (like Obama), been on every side of every major issue depending on who he's talking to, and is bought and paid for by the big banks and corporations (like Obama). He will do whatever he is told. And if he starts to resist their control, he will be replaced.

That's pretty damn cynical.  Bush governed differently in some respects, as I outlined.  In some cases there were reasons for his changing policies (e.g. 9/11).  As for Romney, he hasn't "lied about his past" and he hasn't been on every side of every issue.  That's simply false.  The rest of it is a little Orwellian and or sammi jo for me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001 

 

That's pretty damn cynical.  Bush governed differently in some respects, as I outlined.  In some cases there were reasons for his changing policies (e.g. 9/11).  As for Romney, he hasn't "lied about his past" and he hasn't been on every side of every issue.  That's simply false.  The rest of it is a little Orwellian and or sammi jo for me.

Fine, put your fingers in your ears. Brand me a "conspiracy theorist". What you call cynicism I call reality. And the sooner more Americans wake up to reality, the sooner we can make a real difference instead of putting our confidence in these phonies.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jazzguru 

 

Fine, put your fingers in your ears. Brand me a "conspiracy theorist". What you call cynicism I call reality. And the sooner more Americans wake up to reality, the sooner we can make a real difference instead of putting our confidence in these phonies.

Dude, come on. You posted this:

I'm not arguing there isn't lots of big business and big money influence.  But "replaced" if he doesn't do the cabal's bidding?  That's practically a Manchurian Candidate conspiracy.  I realize that Ron Paul is your Only One and True Savior and that no one else even compares.  But if you're going to accuse Romney of doing exactly the opposite of what he campaigned upon, some evidence of your assertion would be nice.  

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001 

I'm not arguing there isn't lots of big business and big money influence.  But "replaced" if he doesn't do the cabal's bidding?  That's practically a Manchurian Candidate conspiracy.  I realize that Ron Paul is your Only One and True Savior and that no one else even compares.  But if you're going to accuse Romney of doing exactly the opposite of what he campaigned upon, some evidence of your assertion would be nice.  

With regard to being replaced, it's happened before and it's been attempted numerous times. But any evidence I offer up will be dismissed as a "conspiracy theory" so I won't bother. The information is out there if you are truly interested in knowing it.

Ron Paul is not my "savior" or anyone else's. He is the only candidate who represents a fundamental change to the status quo and that is why I support him.

I have no delusions of a utopia coming about or problems melting away under a Ron Paul presidency. But he's the only candidate I trust to do whatever he can to fulfill his campaign promises.

You want evidence of Romney's duplicity? As you have often said: "I'm not going to do your homework for you", but I'll help you get started. All you have to do is google "romney flip flops" to find things like this:

14 Bald-Faced Mitt Romney Flip-Flops That Were Dug Up By John McCain

Quote:

Originally Posted by jazzguru 

 

With regard to being replaced, it's happened before and it's been attempted numerous times. But any evidence I offer up will be dismissed as a "conspiracy theory" so I won't bother. The information is out there if you are truly interested in knowing it.

 

Ron Paul is not my "savior" or anyone else's. He is the only candidate who represents a fundamental change to the status quo and that is why I support him.

 

I have no delusions of a utopia coming about or problems melting away under a Ron Paul presidency. But he's the only candidate I trust to do whatever he can to fulfill his campaign promises.

 

You want evidence of Romney's duplicity? As you have often said: "I'm not going to do your homework for you", but I'll help you get started. All you have to do is google "romney flip flops" to find things like this:

 

14 Bald-Faced Mitt Romney Flip-Flops That Were Dug Up By John McCain

1.  No, let's see this evidence.  You are the one making the claim.  

2.  I was using hyperbole, obviously.  The point is that no candidate will ever live up to Ron Paul.  Even Ron Paul. 

3. The Romney link is pathetic.  I won't even bother going point by point.  It's nothing but spun trash dug up by McCain.  It even says so in the title! 

No, you have already made up your mind to disregard whatever evidence I present. It's not worth my time.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jazzguru 

No, you have already made up your mind to disregard whatever evidence I present. It's not worth my time.

Relax.  You're not talking to BR or jimmac, here.  My request for evidence is sincere.  I'm asking what you mean by "will be replaced" and to see your basis for claiming it's "happened before."  I'm not doing it to set up a dismissal.  If it's convincing, we'll go from there.  If it's not, I'll explain why I think so.  I don't think that's an unreasonable request.  

Manufacturing, Jobs Reports Add Up to More Bad News

Why do you think Obama likes big government in your estimation?
 

Sales of Existing U.S. Homes Fall to Eight-Month Low

Retail Purchases In U.S. Unexpectedly Decrease 0.5%

Jobless Claims Jump Unexpectedly

Quote:

Originally Posted by trumptman 

Four pages in, this has gotten to be a bit funny and sad as to how the numbers are still "unexpectedly" turning up wrong. Perhaps some nice expert out there will start sending us some cash since we "unexpectedly" keep turning out right about how the economy is doing.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/48239619

Love the headline:  

Weekly Claims Post Rebound; Jobs Market Still in Doldrums

It makes it sound like more jobless claims ("jobless" not being used in the headline) is a good thing.  

Orders to U.S. Factories Unexpectedly Declined 0.5% in June

U.S. Manufacturing Unexpectedly Shrinks For Second Month

Jobless claims rise again.  Also, look over there...Romney is rich!  

Quote:

Originally Posted by BR 

But, but, we can't give money to the freeloading poor who will immediately spend it all, thereby increasing demand and actually stimulating the economy! SUPPLY SIDE OR NO SIDE!

SUPPLY SIDE OR NO SIDE!

SUPPLY SIDE OR NO SIDE!

THANK YOU JESUS!

lol

Quote:

Originally Posted by MJ1970 

Waiting for the headline: "Obama unexpectedly loses election."

 

Well we'll see.

Quote:

Originally Posted by FloorJack 

Quote:

Originally Posted by marvfox 

What will Romney do now? Your great idol.
 

 

What they say and what they do are almost always two different things. We do know one thing. If things get better under Romney it will be "unexpected" to the press.

What if they don't? Who will be blamed then?

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmac 

What if they don't? Who will be blamed then?

They haven't under Obama. Is he accepting any blame?