Election day 2010

myp

Jan 2009
5,841
50
Well it's midterm election time. I went out to vote earlier today, even though the choices aren't all that great.

The GOP is expected to easily take back the House and the Dems are supposed to hold the Senate, but will probably lose seats there as well. Whether the tea party driven GOP actually sticks to the small government message is still up in the air, but at the very least more partisan politics will likely mean less spending- that's always a plus.

Thoughts on election day?
 
Jul 2009
5,893
474
Port St. Lucie
Well it's midterm election time. I went out to vote earlier today, even though the choices aren't all that great.

The GOP is expected to easily take back the House and the Dems are supposed to hold the Senate, but will probably lose seats there as well. Whether the tea party driven GOP actually sticks to the small government message is still up in the air, but at the very least more partisan politics will likely mean less spending- that's always a plus.

Thoughts on election day?

The GOP?! :giggle: The TP is taking over.
 

myp

Jan 2009
5,841
50
The GOP?! :giggle: The TP is taking over.
Well, in a lot of these cases the tea partiers are also Republicans. On party affiliation, the GOP is still expected to take the House. So far, it looks pretty likely.

In the Senate, it looks like Rand Paul and Marco Rubio will both get wins and Demint will be back as well. Not a bad group right there in my opinion.
 
Jul 2009
5,893
474
Port St. Lucie
Well, in a lot of these cases the tea partiers are also Republicans. On party affiliation, the GOP is still expected to take the House. So far, it looks pretty likely.

In the Senate, it looks like Rand Paul and Marco Rubio will both get wins and Demint will be back as well. Not a bad group right there in my opinion.

True but an often over looked fact, the Grand old Party is no more the RNC then the Tea Party. The GOP got trounced in the Primaries, thus the Repubs are being represented by the TP, not the GOP.

I apologize if I seem to be nit-picking but it's a major difference. Not making the distinction is like calling a Social-Dem a Blue Dog.
 
Aug 2010
862
0
The Tea Party people are not Republicans just as conservatives are not. However, those groups do find common cause with the GOP because they are not viable political parties on their own (nor do they really wish to be. I think WFBuckley Jr.'s brother won a NY race as a conservative way back when but that's about it)
 
Apr 2009
1,943
5
Disunited Queendom
Elections in the US remind me of everything that's wrong with American politics. By which i mean, just about everything.
 
Jul 2009
5,893
474
Port St. Lucie
Elections in the US remind me of everything that's wrong with American politics. By which i mean, just about everything.

The best part is the hardliners in both parties got voted in. Everyone is so caught up on the TP, the fact hard-line liberals and social-dems won every Dem seat (at the national level) as been lost. Now you have everyone thinking that this nation is going to go conservative despite having a senate filled with actual leftists (not to mention Sen. Sanders, the socialist). It's quite funny knowing Congress is going to spend the next 2 years tripping over itself. :giggle:
 
Apr 2009
1,943
5
Disunited Queendom
lol

politics is politics... it is wrong by definition. the "american" qualifier is unnecessary

Sounds about right. :rolleyes:

Oh SORRY, I mean, oh noez, the evil Yankees is all wrong, and only our Federal Republic can has good politics.

The best part is the hardliners in both parties got voted in. Everyone is so caught up on the TP, the fact hard-line liberals and social-dems won every Dem seat (at the national level) as been lost. Now you have everyone thinking that this nation is going to go conservative despite having a senate filled with actual leftists (not to mention Sen. Sanders, the socialist). It's quite funny knowing Congress is going to spend the next 2 years tripping over itself. :giggle:

So basically nothing will get done on either side? Well, at least that means neither the Government nor the Republicans can mess things up irrevocably (merely allow the country to drift into stagnation).
 
Jul 2009
5,893
474
Port St. Lucie
So basically nothing will get done on either side? Well, at least that means neither the Government nor the Republicans can mess things up irrevocably (merely allow the country to drift into stagnation).

In simpler terms, "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss."
 

myp

Jan 2009
5,841
50
At this point a bickering, get-nothing-done Congress might just be better than one that can actually pass their ludicrous spending bills. Despite what the President may have said today.
 
Jul 2009
5,893
474
Port St. Lucie
At this point a bickering, get-nothing-done Congress might just be better than one that can actually pass their ludicrous spending bills. Despite what the President may have said today.

Ya but those investment bills have helped the economy get out of recession, avoided depression and generally fixed a lot of this nation's problems.

Think about it, just 2 years ago people were worried abut hyperinflation, now we have deflation and at a healthy level. Complain all you want, it's misplaced. Not that there aren't issues to be tackled but the idea we're spending to much (not to be confused with spending stupidly) is just generic, unsupported and purposely vague anti-gov't (not small gov't, no gov't) rhetoric.
 

myp

Jan 2009
5,841
50
Ya but those investment bills have helped the economy get out of recession, avoided depression and generally fixed a lot of this nation's problems.
No they haven't. They have drastically failed to meet even the projections of the politicians trying to ram them through. Just as the New Deal expanded the Depression, this will expand this recession. Adding to that, that fiscal spending has increased the decline of the dollar, which along with QE1 and QE2 (which will end up totaling over $2 trillion) might just take the USD out as a reserve currency- if that happens, then things are going to get even worse, not better. It is easy to buy into the utopian delusions of politicians, but the market knows what is happening.

Germany has actually bashed us twice in the past week for too much stimulus. They have spent less to "boost" the economy as a percentage of GDP and at the same time, they have one of the stronger recoveries. The idea that government can create prosperity is quickly dying. If we don't kill it and turn things around, then the market will do it for us and it won't be nearly as pretty. Wait and watch is all I can say if you still think the stimulus and QE is helping.

Think about it, just 2 years ago people were worried abut hyperinflation, now we have deflation and at a healthy level.
Have you been paying attention the last two weeks? Everyone is yelling inflation- potentially hyperinflation and I'm not talking just the Austrians- you have people like Bill Gross saying the USD can fall 20% in the next few years and even people like Warren Buffet, Joseph Stiglitz (a Keynesian nobel winner), and tons of others saying QE2 won't work.

And we don't have deflation. What measure are you using to say that? I am assuming the Federal Reserve spoon-fed one- the core CPI? The "core CPI" does not account for any of the things that actually matter such as food, energy, etc.- the things we use everyday because the people behind the core CPI believe they are "too volatile." Well volatile or not, the everyday person buys those things the most and certainly before all of the luxury b.s. we don't need. Factor in the prices counting the things that matter and we don't have deflation. Furthermore, consider the fact that certain prices have stayed similar simply due to competitive devaluations by China, etc. and it becomes apparent that even in those few markets, monetary inflation is still there- it is just there on both ends and obviously, that can't last.

Complain all you want, it's misplaced. Not that there aren't issues to be tackled but the idea we're spending to much (not to be confused with spending stupidly) is just generic, unsupported and purposely vague anti-gov't (not small gov't, no gov't) rhetoric.
Tell me it's misplaced after you address the concerns I just gave you. At the end of the day, the big Wall St. players- I'm talking Goldman, etc.- know what is happening and they will make smart moves to save themselves. The poor man and the middle class will get screwed once more and some idiot politicians will blame the big banks again even though Fed policy and the government drove markets in the wrong way and the banks just realized it and saved themselves.
 
Aug 2010
862
0
In simpler terms, "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss."


Simpler yes. Accurate no.

Are you unable to distinguish the notions of the liberals from the conservatives or the democrats from the republiucans (the latter is slightly more challenging but only slightly.)

At this point a bickering, get-nothing-done Congress might just be better than one that can actually pass their ludicrous spending bills. Despite what the President may have said today.

The House can get bills passed. The Senate perhaps.

What's interesting is how this will play out in public approval.

The GOP can probably get a bunch of middle of the road legislation passed on onto the President's desk where he'll have the choice of signing it or vetoing it. Either choice will piss some group or another off. The largest specific issue the voters rebelled on was spending. Will he sign bills that cut spending? What if they can get a bill on his desk dismantling in part his health care program? Etc
 
Jul 2009
5,893
474
Port St. Lucie
No they haven't. They have drastically failed to meet even the projections of the politicians trying to ram them through. Just as the New Deal expanded the Depression, this will expand this recession. Adding to that, that fiscal spending has increased the decline of the dollar, which along with QE1 and QE2 (which will end up totaling over $2 trillion) might just take the USD out as a reserve currency- if that happens, then things are going to get even worse, not better. It is easy to buy into the utopian delusions of politicians, but the market knows what is happening.

Germany has actually bashed us twice in the past week for too much stimulus. They have spent less to "boost" the economy as a percentage of GDP and at the same time, they have one of the stronger recoveries. The idea that government can create prosperity is quickly dying. If we don't kill it and turn things around, then the market will do it for us and it won't be nearly as pretty. Wait and watch is all I can say if you still think the stimulus and QE is helping.

Have you been paying attention the last two weeks? Everyone is yelling inflation- potentially hyperinflation and I'm not talking just the Austrians- you have people like Bill Gross saying the USD can fall 20% in the next few years and even people like Warren Buffet, Joseph Stiglitz (a Keynesian nobel winner), and tons of others saying QE2 won't work.

And we don't have deflation. What measure are you using to say that? I am assuming the Federal Reserve spoon-fed one- the core CPI? The "core CPI" does not account for any of the things that actually matter such as food, energy, etc.- the things we use everyday because the people behind the core CPI believe they are "too volatile." Well volatile or not, the everyday person buys those things the most and certainly before all of the luxury b.s. we don't need. Factor in the prices counting the things that matter and we don't have deflation. Furthermore, consider the fact that certain prices have stayed similar simply due to competitive devaluations by China, etc. and it becomes apparent that even in those few markets, monetary inflation is still there- it is just there on both ends and obviously, that can't last.


Tell me it's misplaced after you address the concerns I just gave you. At the end of the day, the big Wall St. players- I'm talking Goldman, etc.- know what is happening and they will make smart moves to save themselves. The poor man and the middle class will get screwed once more and some idiot politicians will blame the big banks again even though Fed policy and the government drove markets in the wrong way and the banks just realized it and saved themselves.

Small businesses can't expand to to lack of funds. Big businesses can't expand due to low profit margins (which they need to preserve to pay out dividends) or worse finding themselves in a deficit and trying to avoid collapse. The obvious answer to this is low interest lones with long-term repayment terms but the financial industry has been 1 of the hardest hit (largely due to their own stupidity/greed) and so are hesitant or outright opposed to lend. The result is stagnation and a continually weak economy. This leaves the gov't to invest in the economy in hopes of getting the money flowing once more.

How much the gov't should be in vesting and in what is a question of legitimate debate but the idea gov't should have no role in economics is insanity of the highest order. Capitalism, when allowed to run unchecked, never works, there's a reason the average capitalist tends to view socialism as the socially better option (questions of practicality in economics usually being what keeps them in the capitalist camp). So argue all you what that the gov't is wasting money (I'm in full agreement there) but don't say it shouldn't be investing at all. It shows an utter lack of economic understanding.
 

myp

Jan 2009
5,841
50
Small businesses can't expand to to lack of funds. Big businesses can't expand due to low profit margins (which they need to preserve to pay out dividends) or worse finding themselves in a deficit and trying to avoid collapse. The obvious answer to this is low interest lones with long-term repayment terms but the financial industry has been 1 of the hardest hit (largely due to their own stupidity/greed) and so are hesitant or outright opposed to lend. The result is stagnation and a continually weak economy. This leaves the gov't to invest in the economy in hopes of getting the money flowing once more.
There is no shortage of liquidity. That is not true and unless you really believe Bernanke and Krugman over pretty much everyone else, I am not sure why you think that. You realize that these are the same arguments those two used the last time- when the housing bubble was being blown up, right?

Sure things might get worse for the coming month or two if you stop all your spending and QE, but prices will hit their natural floors and eventually things will pick up. What you are trying to do here is to avoid a downfall that was created as a result of free money last time by using free money as a solution- how does that seem logical? All it does is repeat what happened, but at a worse scale if the USD tanks. The idea that you can have positive growth forever into the future is naive, especially when you are trying to have that happen after a bubble burst.

How much the gov't should be in vesting and in what is a question of legitimate debate but the idea gov't should have no role in economics is insanity of the highest order.
Insanity? Really? I don't think it's fair to say it's insane to believe it doesn't work when you haven't even provided any conclusive proof (most probably because it doesn't exist since most macroeconomic research is correlational and can't draw causal conclusions in the first place). Feel free to drink the Kool Aid, but when it all comes crashing down, don't say we didn't tell you. If you have any real statistics or numbers here or even speculation from anyone who isn't Bernanke, Geithner, or Krugman (and has some ethos) then please do share.

Capitalism, when allowed to run unchecked, never works, there's a reason the average capitalist tends to view socialism as the socially better option (questions of practicality in economics usually being what keeps them in the capitalist camp). So argue all you what that the gov't is wasting money (I'm in full agreement there) but don't say it shouldn't be investing at all. It shows an utter lack of economic understanding.
Capitalism has never been allowed to run unchecked. And that ends all speculation in the rest of your argument.

And if you really think this stimuli helps out the poor and middle class, I suggest you check this article out as well as read a bit more into QE:
http://www.zerohedge.com/article/how-ben-bernanke-sentenced-poorest-20-population-cold-hungry-winter
 
Aug 2010
862
0
Ya but those investment bills have helped the economy get out of recession, avoided depression and generally fixed a lot of this nation's problems.

This response does not appear to include a strong grasp of the current state of the economy nor of the lack of any positive impact on same by the current administration or congress.
 
Aug 2010
862
0
How much the gov't should be in vesting and in what is a question of legitimate debate but the idea gov't should have no role in economics is insanity of the highest order.

The Japanese employed this generalized notion of Keynesian spending in order to stimulate their sluggish economy.

The Japanese got a decade long recession and national debt at roughly 200% of GDP.

Given this recent example and the absolute failure of the Stimulus Bill why do you think the same program would yield better results in the US?
 

myp

Jan 2009
5,841
50
Two Bloomberg articles that help solidify what I said in my last post:
1) Bernanke says his policies won't spur "super high" inflation- http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-...ansion-won-t-spur-super-normal-inflation.html

Why do you think he'd say that unless other big names in finance were actually worried? Go back and look at Reuters, Bloomberg, or any financial news site over the past 2 weeks and tell me inflation worries aren't there.

2) The Fed's own Hoenig says monetary policy is too loose and will lead to instability. He also voted against QE2 and doesn't believe further monetary or fiscal stimulus should be pushed in an attempt to "help" the housing market because it won't help bring a stable recovery:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-...-raise-rates-to-create-a-stable-economy-.html
 
Top