...and yet the job numbers are better now than when Bush left office. So, not a complete failure but certainly short of desirable. Besides jobs, every other part of the economy is booming especially Houston's economy.
LOL at the piss poor rationalizations of the the obama hating closeted bigots in this thread. There are first world developed countries with over 15-20% unemployment yet here we are again ripping a president who inherited a cluster **** of a situation from another immoral conservative, republican, right wing nut job of a president and steered us away from a depression. You REPUGNANT, right wing, conservatards are IMMORAL POND SCUM MAGGOTS who deserve to get stoned to death or for your constant attempt to destroy our country for the sake of destroying the first african american president in the history of this great nation in order to win the next election cycle with your hapless and shameless attempts at pinning a scandal on him. YOU WILL FAIL AND HISTORY IS NOT ON YOUR SIDE.
Hates Conservatives. Promotes killing those who have different beliefs. Promotes stoning. Muslim? You also just failed miserably to address the employment numbers....
Obama has clearly done a piss poor job with the economy and especially jobs. ...and this is with the pedal to the metal from the Fed giving him every conceivable advantage to do well. ...and he still failed. oh, and by the way -- he's half white / half black (and raised by whites and Lolo), just so you know
I was listening to the Wall Street Journal podcast over the weekend, and a few points jumped out to me: 1) Many of the jobs created in the US have been part-time 2) With the number of folks dropping out of the labor pool, the true "unemployment situation" is roughly the equivalent of a 14% unemployment rate 3) How bad Europe is right now -- Spain has 27% unemployment -- that is worse than the US during the Great Depression of the 1930s. Sub-components of that are even scarier -- e.g., unemployment for workers in their 20s is close to 50%. Italy is similar to this. Truly disastrous.
You should short all of your stocks then - hey i hear gold is cheap. Oh that's right, you don't have any.
what a lazy response from you, Sam. I guess you're a little sour that the long holiday weekend has come to a close? The stock market is driven by additional factors than simply unemployment, and you know that. Quantitative easing anybody?
Care to argue the points? It's a point that's been hit on very clearly by Nobel Prize-winning economists like Stiglitz. If you had read the Big Short, it's also a prominent theme among hedge fund managers---although they're taking advantage of it. The credit cycle passes on now to another public policy failure---a hands-off attitude towards schooling. http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/05/12/student-debt-and-the-crushing-of-the-american-dream/ we can do the shortcut---you can be snide and post Mises again, you know the guy who died about forty years ago. I'm sure his insights are timeless (and easy to copy/paste).
Did the WSJ article mention how ludicrious it is to blame these emerging macro trends on a law that, at the margin, would affect companies with 50 employees and their reporting requirements? Did the WSJ also contrast the weaker family-based, church-based welfare systems of Italy and Spain with the more robust modern European models present in Sweden, Austria, Norway etc.? Inflexible labour markets vs flexible ones? System that provides state services, or one that puts the burdens on the traditional family structure?
You made no points, and no I don't care to argue your hilarious assertion that libertarians have run the economy into the ground. If you really, truly, honestly believe that, despite having eyes, ears, and a well-functioning brain, there is nothing I could do to make you think otherwise. I'll sooner convince a LOF that McHale is a good coach. I was just a little surprised to see that post authored by someone other than glynch.
Wait - you don't think deregulation of banks contributed in large part to the 2008 financial meltdown? Or did the meltdown not run the economy into the ground? I didn't think this issue was even in dispute.
Care to post the Mises Institute article that explains 2008, the Asian Financial Crisis, Internet boom+bust and etc.? A libertarian attitude to public policy on economic issues has ruined America. I also happen to hang around a bunch of people in the tech industry and banking who are annoyingly libertarian in their stance on economic issues (although quite okay otherwise), and given testimony from sources like Andrew Ross Sorkin (because sadly, I haven't had the distinct---um---something-or-other of meeting Einhorn, hedge fund Paulson et. al...yet), the people running behind the scenes causing fires like 2008 are quite libertarian---though that just makes sense. Maximal profits, minimum worries.
I've given up arguing about the financial crisis on the internet, but in short: no, "deregulation" was not what caused the 2008 crash. Central banking + fractional reserves = inherent instability. There's more to it than that, of course, but this is just a short hand answer to your question. The Theory of Money and Credit is a good read. I realize that most prefer the results of the latest empirical study of how A affects B to an actual theory of economics which takes into account A, B, and the unseen C, and their roles in the grander scheme of things, so I don't really try to argue about economics anymore (on the internet). Instead, I just nod my head and force a smile when someone tells me, for example, that smashing old cars will be good for the economy. But you are right. This issue isn't in dispute. Everyone who will have an opinion on it has already decided what it will be.
Let's make it clear here---you don't have an opinion. Mises does, and you are quoting him verbatim on EVERYTHING. That's fair enough, but personally, I'd give up on the smugness if I were you, it doesn't suit someone who has a single source for every argument. “Even the most practical man of affairs is usually in the thrall of the ideas of some long-dead economist” At least make it economistS. it's seriously unhealthy what you're doing, and I do not recommend it. grander scheme of things--- sigh. in any case, if you're intrested in moving beyond that, Shiller and Minsky have very good work on financial instability being inherent to market movements thanks to irrational behavioral psychology---seems it would appeal to someone who had the notion that he was above conventional economics (aren't we all?)
Have you no access to the Google machine? Dot Com - http://mises.org/journals/qjae/pdf/qjae6_2_3.pdf 2008 - Tom Woods' book Asian Financial Crisis - Google it yer darn self. I don't know of anything off hand, but I'm sure it's there. There's a good quote somewhere by Albert Jay Nock (or someone like that) that states that it's a myth that businessmen want a government to get out of their way. In reality, they want a government they can use. And I think you are misusing the word libertarian itself.
i want you to post the articles so I can save myself the time to do so, insofar as I'm concerned one of your gleaming talents is the ability to have Mises posts for EVERYTHING. too bad nothing on double play though...would be interesting to see what Mises thinks about that. ohwaithedied30yearsbeforeithappened and no, I'm using the term right. If I wanted to argue the regulatory capture angle I would have referred to Dimon et. al---instead we're talking about hedge funds as an example---which basically means people who are trying to get out of as much government regulation as possible. We can focus on ineffective governance being a problem as well, but it's a shine better (still hell, but probably a higher tier of hell) than the unregulated mess over-the-counter markets had become back in the 2007 days. and we're talking about a huge deal there---
Agreed that smugness doesn't suit me. Also, there are other economists I like. If I cite Mises significantly more than the rest, and if that upsets you, I apologize. The economist I enjoy reading the most is actually Joseph Schumpeter, and though is Austrian he was not an Austrian.
