Great post, Gene. As I've mentioned before the only things the government can do to help the economy is to put more money into it and I don't see how the Bush administration can possibly put more into it. Also, I think that the credit/blame that we assign to Presidents with regard to the economy is actually bad for the country. It forces Presidents to make bad decisions in order to keep the economic boat stable. You want to know the real reason why no president (Democrat or Republican) has worked to wean the country off an oil economy? It's because the transition would probably rock the economy and the political opposition would seize upon the bad economy as an opportunity to get their guy into power. So, while making efforts to move the country off of an oil-based economy would be good for our nation in the long run, it would also be political suicide because of the short-term economic ramifications.
It's not just how much money they put in the economy, but where they put it. And, with the Bush administration (because that's the administration in power right now - Clinton may have been better or worse, but that's a moot point since he's no longer in power) the where is the most questionable factor. It doesn't appear to me that they're even attempting to improve the economy, unless improving the economy is now synonymous with "taking American tax dollars and giving them to my wealthy buddies and corporate donors while telling the voters that my bootlicking cronyism is good for the U.S. economy" - but, that's my own bias. This is an interesting point. Another possible area where short-sighted politics cause massive damage by deterring politicians from acting with long-term policies.
The unemployment rate has always consisted of 3 categories: 1. The transitionally unemployed - Those who are simply between jobs. 2. The seasonally unemployed - Those who are out of work due to a downturn in the business cycle. 3. The chronically unemployed - Those who are "unemployable" due to mental illness, etc. This is nothing new. This is not something exclusive to the Bush administration.
I think the thing is whether Bush can convince people it isn't as bad as it seems...To blame Bush for the weak market is ridiculous...Again, it doesn't happen overnight and this all started during Clinton's reign...Bush is at least trying to forge forward with a plan, which again, won't work overnight... [/QUOTE] Once again the party for personal responsibility fails to take responsibility. "It's all Clinton's fault..."
The markets took an abrupt change of course today on speculation of a stronger-than-expected Friday employment report. We'll have to wait and see. Oddly, a strong employment report would be bad news for many traders because it would raise the probability of interest rate hikes in the near future. It would shut up the liberals for a day or two, though.
Bamaslammer, I was actually wondering if you had an answer to this. Can you please name some of these less regulated, libertarian economic powerhouses that you feel we should emulate?
All I know is, I agree with VP Cheney... If the Democratic policies had been pursued over the last two or three years, the kind of tax increases that both Kerry and Edwards have talked about, we would not have had the kind of job growth that we've had. Yes, if Dem policies had been followed over the last three years, we would not have seen the negative job growth. As far as tax increases go, I do disagree with our warm-hearted VP. Over the last three years, Dems would not have pushed the tax cuts and would have retained the Clinton era tax rates, so I don't see any "tax increases."
Conversely, when has a nation regulated and taxed their way to prosperity? Uh.....never. A key example is that of the derregulation of air travel in this country, which enabled UPS and FEDEX to revolutionize shipping. Do we really need a federal OSHA or EPA...no. Capitalism ensures a clean environment because an active and free media will shower a polluter with more bad publicity that is far more costly than a few slap on the wrist fines by a govt. regulatory agency. Capitalism ensures safe workplaces because dangerous ones will be unable to compete in the employment marketplace, not because some OSHA inspector comes into a factory and issues fines because of some bull**** regulations that are ridiculous in the extreme. WE are being choked by lawyers, ridiculous regulations (read the case of the public pay toilets in NYC) and regulatory agencies that act to stifle competition because they are run by the 1000-lb gorillas of the industries they supposedly police.
Please explain to me how a higher tax rate will equate to new jobs. The logic just isn't there. If the tax hike is followed by a spending hike (I'm not advocating this), then it depends where the money is being spent by the private sector vs. the government. If there was a tax hike of $1 billion, and that $1 billion is spent by the government on domestically produced goods and/or services, that will certainly create jobs. If that billion was not taxes and was spent by the private sector on domestic goods/services, that would also create jobs. If that billion was spent on foreign goods/services, it would not have created jobs. It all depends on where the money is spent, not who's spending it.
I seriously doubt that the government would have spent those additional dollars largely on goods and services. Then again, they surely wouldn't have used it for pay raises for troops or other things that would be desirable.
I seriously doubt that the government would have spent those additional dollars largely on goods and services. Then again, they surely wouldn't have used it for pay raises for troops or other things that would be desirable. Yeah, it depends where the money is spent. If it went to military spending, it almost assuredly would have gone to domestic goods. If it went to education spending, that would likely be in the form of new technology, new buildings, etc... if that was domestically produced, then that would count.
Bamaslammer, I was actually wondering if you had an answer to this. Can you please name some of these less regulated, libertarian economic powerhouses that you feel we should emulate? I'm going to interpret this as a no.
#1. If the ultimate bottom line is economic efficiency, why don't we return to slavery? Slavery was an incredible boon to the 18th century/early 19th century economy in the US. The system ensured that labor costs remained low and that supply was plentiful. Ultimately, however, it was determined that some ethical and social concerns supersede economic concerns. I would suggest that the country was stronger for it in the long run. #2. Historically, countries which suffer from the largest disparities in wealth have suffered from the greatest level of internal strife and conflict. Examples include modern Saudi Arabia, Russia circa 1915, France circa the French Revolution, the disenfranchised knights of the middle ages who were sent on the crusades, etc. It therefore behooves the US to ensure that while gross wealth increases, some of the wealth reaches the "masses". #3. I think that there is some legitimate cause for making the case that the loss of factory jobs has more to do with productivity gains, and changing economic realities, etc. than with anything specific to NAFTA or the like, but ultimately I don't see that it matters. If we end up with a large segment of society who is permanently disenfranchised because the only job for them is a $5/hr job at McDonalds, we are going to be in big social trouble. Postscript - bammerslammer, I'd be intrested to hear your opinion on the Sherman act, whether it was necessary, and how it hurt or benifited the US. From my perspective, the history leading up to it's passage makes your statements regarding regulatory controls seem like a feeble joke.
Hong Kong. A place with little or no natural resources that is a booming economic area because businesses are not emasculated by the regulatory beast. There, you pay a small amount for a business license and whatever you pay your workers and whatever benefits you provide is your business.
Really? That's somewhat odd to me that a former British Colony and a current part of the PRC has comparatively few regulations relative to the US. Do you have any sources for this assertion? Edit: for my own amusement, I just pulled up the website of www.hkosha.org.hk; Seems like they have regulations on suspended work platforms, loadshifting machinery, and other such minutiae. Of course, I haven't even begun to discuss the various restrictions on capital and private property that they may have....
Of course this was before the PRC took over. They will likely kill the golden goose. So lemme guess, you believe that excessive and draconian regulation by govt. is a way to prosperity? Just come out and say it, why don't you instead of this little end-run of "name one, wiseguy."
Stop dodging the question with bullsh-t tangents. I'm just asking you to back your ipse dixit assertions with actual evidence instead of talking out your ass like a radio shock jock. I didn't say anything about regulating your way to prosperity. Back on topic, please provide me some documentation as to pre-PRC health, labor & saftey regulations of Hong Kong as compared to the post-PRC situation. I am inherently skeptical that htere is a significant difference, given that HK did not go back to China until 98, I think it was, and the fact that this banner appears on the HKOSHA website: You can either do that research or concede that you are full of it, whichever takes less effort. I think it's probably the former
No, it's you who needs to cease with tangents and answer my question: Can a state tax and regulate itself into prosperity? Answer the question. I have the answer, but I'd like to hear your answer.
