Bush-o-nomics

[Yonivore]

Quote of the day from Ken Mayland, president of ClearView Economics: “The wheels aren’t coming off the economy.”

From the White House:


October saw a net gain of 166,000 jobs.

That’s a net gain of 8.31 million jobs since August 2003 — a 50-month span.
Unemployment remains at 4.7%.

The economy grew 3.9% in the third quarter.

After-tax per capita personal income has risen by 12.7% since Bush became president. That’s an average of $3,800 per person.

The deficit today is at 1.2% of GDP, well below the 40-year average.
Now tell me how the Bush tax cuts just helped the rich. Was it the doubling of the child tax credit or the removal of all federal income taxes for 15 million middle-class taxpayers, er, ex-taxpayers?

You don’t get job growth by taking money from investors and handing it to the government.

And, despite inheriting the Clinton Recession (http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/3/20/190717.shtml) and managing through the corporate scandals and the 9-11 attacks that crippled the US economy, the average monthly unemployment rate during the Bush years now bests the Clinton years:

http://bp2.blogger.com/_L6pDyjqqsvY/RytFIzdSdZI/AAAAAAAAIrk/ORpgM11iaxI/s1600/US%2Bunemployment%2Brate.JPG
Through October 2007- US Unemployment Rate History (http://www.miseryindex.us/urbymonth.asp).

Today's encouraging employment news boosted the Bush Administration ahead of the previous administration.

Democrats used to preach that this was a "jobless recovery (http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?itemid=16561)".

As usual, and damn near as always, they were wrong.

AP reported:


WASHINGTON (AP) — Employers boosted payrolls by a surprisingly strong 166,000 in October, the most in five months, an encouraging sign that the nation’s employment climate is holding up relatively well against the strains of a housing collapse and credit crunch.

The Labor Department’s report, released Friday, also showed that the unemployment rate held steady at 4.7 percent for the second month in a row. It’s a figure that is considered low by historical standards.

Job gains were logged for professional and business services, education and health care, leisure and hospitality, and for the government. Those employment increases more than offset jobs losses in manufacturing, construction and retail — casualties of the problems plaguing the housing market.

The latest report on employment conditions around the country was better than economists were anticipating. Economists were forecasting payrolls to grow in October by about half the pace seen — around 80,000. They did correctly predict the unemployment rate would be unchanged.

“Businesses have not clammed up on the hiring scene as some feared,” said Ken Mayland, president of ClearView Economics. “The wheels aren’t coming off the economy.”

On Wall Street, stocks traded mixed in the early going as investors found something to like in the surprisingly strong jobs report but remained jittery about the overall health of the economy. The Dow Jones industrial average fell 65.85, or 0.49 percent, to 13,502.02 in morning trading, pulling back after rising in the opening minutes.

In other economic news, orders placed to U.S. factories edged up 0.2 percent in September, an improvement compared with the 3.5 percent drop registered in August, the Commerce Department said in a second report. The manufacturing news was better than the 0.4 percent decline analysts were expecting.

On the employment front, even with October’s solid gain in payrolls, the trend this year has been toward softer job growth. And, that is beginning to show up in wages.

Average hourly earnings rose to $17.58 in October, a modest 0.2 percent increase from September. Economists were forecasting a slightly larger, 0.3 percent increase. Over the past 12 months, wages were up 3.8 percent.

Still, economists said the wage gains should be sufficient to support consumer spending and keep the economic expansion — which began in late 2001 — intact. A faltering job market could crimp wage growth. That could lessen people’s appetite to spend, spelling trouble for the economy.

The state of the nation’s employment climate is a crucial factor determining whether the economy will, in fact, weather the financial storm. So far, decent job creation and wage growth have helped to offset some of the negative forces hitting some individuals from the housing slump, weaker home values and harder-to-get credit.

To be sure, problems challenging the economy are hitting some industries and workers hard. The construction industry cut 5,000 jobs, factories slashed 21,000 positions and retailers eliminated nearly 22,000 in October.

But strength in hiring elsewhere blunted those losses. Professional and business services added 65,000 jobs, education and health care industries expanded employment by 43,000. Leisure and hospitality added 56,000 positions and the government boosted payrolls by 36,000.

The economy, which grew at a brisk 3.9 percent annual rate in the third quarter, is expected to slow to about half that pace or less in the current October-to-December quarter. The toll of the housing collapse and credit crunch are expected to catch up to consumers and chill their spending.

“The pace of economic expansion will likely slow in the near term, partly reflecting the intensification of the housing correction,” Federal Reserve policymakers said Wednesday as they decided to lower their key interest rate again.

The Fed sliced its key rate by one-quarter percentage point to 4.50 percent to protect the economy from undue economic weakness in the months ahead. It was the second rate reduction in six weeks. At the same time, the Fed hinted that it may not need to cut rates again for a while.

As economic growth slows, the unemployment rate probably will creep up to around 5 percent by the end of this year or early next year, economists say.

Many analysts believe the country will be able to avoid a recession but they warn that the odds of one occurring have grown since the beginning of this year.

Complicating the outlook and the Fed’s job: surging energy prices. Oil prices have hit record highs in recent days and are hovering past $95 a barrel.

If high oil prices boost the costs of many other goods and services, inflation can spread through the economy. High energy prices also can cause people and businesses to cut back on other types of spending, putting another damper on economic growth.
Maybe in 2008, Republicans should stop looking for the next Reagan and start looking for the next George Walker Bush.

[101A]

Yesterday I heard a report that the public opinion about "the direction the country was headed in" reached a 15 year low.

15 years?

1992

Last time we had a Democratic Congress & Republican President.

The bitching for political advantage is contagious.

Good news on the economy and jobs.

[clambake]

yeah, right. i'd like mine in euro's please. thank you.

[George Gervin's Afro]

how do wage increases compare to the rising costs of , healthcare, gas, inflation.. etc? seems to me that wages have fallen behind so that the middle class make less money than they did before bushonomics took affect. The numbers look great but they seem to be great for a small portion of our populace? any numbers on what type of jobs are created?

[Yonivore]

how do wages increases compare to the rising costs of , healthcare, gas, inflation.. etc? seems to me that wages have fallen behind so that the middle class make less money than they did before bushonomics took affect. The numbers look great but they seem to be great for a small portion of our populace? any numbers on what type of jobs are created?
Speaking for myself, there's more of my paycheck left at the end of the bills today than there was in 2001. And I have the same job as I had in 2001 and I haven't retired any major debt.

As to your second question, it was in the article:


Job gains were logged for professional and business services, education and health care, leisure and hospitality, and for the government. Those employment increases more than offset jobs losses in manufacturing, construction and retail — casualties of the problems plaguing the housing market.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Speaking for myself, there's more of my paycheck left at the end of the bills today than there was in 2001. And I have the same job as I had in 2001 and I haven't retired any major debt.

As to your second question, it was in the article:


I guess my point is that the numbers may sound fantastic but does it affect just a few. Now I am not going to argue that the numbers do indicate that the economy is doing fine rather my point is that no one can argue that a majority of the country is not seeing the benefots from it. To me that's not very honest to not include who exactly is benefiting from the economy. I would have much more respect for yoni's stats if he acknowledged that the middle class isn't necessarily benefiting from it.

[101A]

I guess my point is that the numbers may sound fantastic but does it affect just a few. Now I am not going to argue that the numbers do indicate that the economy is doing fine rather my point is that no one can argue that a majority of the country is not seeing the benefots from it. To me that's not very honest to not include who exactly is benefiting from the economy. I would have much more respect for yoni's stats if he acknowledged that the middle class isn't necessarily benefiting from it.I am middle class.

I take, and keep, more than I did in '01 as well; on similar salary.

[George Gervin's Afro]

I am middle class.

I take, and keep, more than I did in '01 as well; on similar salary.


Well I have been fortunate to have received generous cmpensation increase over the past few years but healthcare is more expensive, gas is more expensive, groceries are more expensive and my paycheck goes does not go as far. I am not complaining because I live a comfortable life and am very fortunate however the majority of Americans make less than I do on average. This, to me, means that a majority of Americans have a hard time making ends meet.. Now I know the predictable responses will be "well they have to live within their means.." etc.. but let's take a look at those without healthcare or a job that offers it. They are behind the 8 ball from the very beginning.... Anyway The numbers look good but I don't believe a majority of Americans directly benefit from it..

[Yonivore]

I guess my point is that the numbers may sound fantastic but does it affect just a few. Now I am not going to argue that the numbers do indicate that the economy is doing fine rather my point is that no one can argue that a majority of the country is not seeing the benefots from it.
I think people can argue that. I think the media narrative has been that the economy is in a nosedive and, yet, quarter after quarter, the numbers keep proving them wrong.

For example, The New York Times noted the positive jobs report, along with other good economic news released today, in an article titled A Wall St. Switch: Good News May Be Good News (http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/11/02/a-wall-st-switch-bad-news-may-be-bad-news/index.html?hp). What's funny about this is that earlier this morning, before the jobs report came out, the article was titled "Wall St. Switch: Bad News May Be Bad News," [you can tell because the NYTimes failed to change the url which includes the title of the previous article.] The Times apparently was expecting bad news on the job front; when the Labor Department report came out, the on-line title was hastily changed and the paper's coverage led with the statement that "the October employment report came in stronger than expected."

This has been the persistent narrative of the media when, in fact, the economy, under President Bush has outperformed the economy under Clinton on almost every indicator.


To me that's not very honest to not include who exactly is benefiting from the economy. I would have much more respect for yoni's stats if he acknowledged that the middle class isn't necessarily benefiting from it.
The article told you where the jobs came from...most, if not all, middle class jobs.

But, not to put too fine a point on it, everyone is benefitting from the up economy.

[101A]

Well I have been fortunate to have received generous cmpensation increase over the past few years but healthcare is more expensive, gas is more expensive, groceries are more expensive and my paycheck goes does not go as far. I am not complaining because I live a comfortable life and am very fortunate however the majority of Americans make less than I do on average. This, to me, means that a majority of Americans have a hard time making ends meet.. Now I know the predictable responses will be "well they have to live within their means.." etc.. but let's take a look at those without healthcare or a job that offers it. They are behind the 8 ball from the very beginning.... Anyway The numbers look good but I don't believe a majority of Americans directly benefit from it..I don't buy that most Americans are having a tougher time of it; I think that is what we are being sold, however.

My friends, acquainences, and contacts seem to be doing alright. A small sampling, but taken with the, as Yoni points out, consistently strong economic numbers, tell me that things are pretty good.

[George Gervin's Afro]

I don't buy that most Americans are having a tougher time of it; I think that is what we are being sold, however.

My friends, acquainences, and contacts seem to be doing alright. A small sampling, but taken with the, as Yoni points out, consistently strong economic numbers, tell me that things are pretty good.


well it is the exact opposite for my friends & associates..

[Yonivore]

well it is the exact opposite for my friends & associates..
Well, you know George, you're never going to have an economy where 100% of the population does well. I mean, 4.7% of the population is still without a job and, in a country our size, that a pretty big number of employable adults.

My finances sucked during the Clinton administration...the only upside were the tech stocks I bought, sat on, and (completely by coincidence) dumped, right before the bubble burst.

I suggest you pick new friends and associates because you're hanging with a small minority of people who are either actually doing poorly in this economy or, I rather suspect, however, you're just hanging with a crowd who has been conditioned to believe their doing poorly because George W. Bush is the President of the United States and, by God, things just can't be good with him at the reins.

[clambake]

yeah george, pick new friends and widden the gap.

[clambake]

I suggest you pick new friends
without a doubt this guy is an asshole.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Well, you know George, you're never going to have an economy where 100% of the population does well. I mean, 4.7% of the population is still without a job and, in a country our size, that a pretty big number of employable adults.

My finances sucked during the Clinton administration...the only upside were the tech stocks I bought, sat on, and (completely by coincidence) dumped, right before the bubble burst.

I suggest you pick new friends and associates because you're hanging with a small minority of people who are either actually doing poorly in this economy or, I rather suspect, however, you're just hanging with a crowd who has been conditioned to believe their doing poorly because George W. Bush is the President of the United States and, by God, things just can't be good with him at the reins.


uh my friends aren't political animals. i see how they struggle daily to make ends meet. they are not complainers nor do they blame others for thier plight. oh and yoni i live in katy texas which is a very republican area..

[George Gervin's Afro]

yeah george, pick new friends and widden the gap.


well i guess i should just hang out with the SUV crowd.. :lol

[Yonivore]

uh my friends aren't political animals. i see how they struggle daily to make ends meet. they are not complainers nor do they blame others for thier plight. oh and yoni i live in katy texas which is a very republican area..
D'okie dokie, doesn't change what I said much.

[BradLohaus]

After-tax per capita personal income has risen by 12.7% since Bush became president. That’s an average of $3,800 per person

The inflation rate from January 2001 to Sptember 2007 was 19.07%, according to this inflation calculator: http://inflationdata.com/Inflation/Inflation_Rate/InflationCalculator.asp#results

And it looks like they are using the CPI, which is a lie that underreports the real inflation rate, as we all know.

I also didn't see anything about household debt in the article. The US has had a negative savings rate since 2005. Only twice before has the US had a negative savings rate for at least a year: during the Great Depression in 1932 and 1933.

The Fed engineered a debt financed spending spree to get us out of the 01-02 recession. Odds favor that a person has more debt now than in 2001. But even if you don't, the fact is that the American consumer in general does (despite having a lower real wage), and his rampant consumption at the expense of his personal savings over the last few years has kept the GDP growing. Credit bubbles don't last forever, though.

[Nbadan]

Next tsunami about to hit wall street...

Level 3 storm about to hit Wall Street
By Martin Hutchinson (http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/IK03Dj03.html)


...# Securitized credit card obligations. $915 billion of credit card debt is currently outstanding, the majority of it securitized, and its default rate is likely to soar as the full effects of the home mortgage market's crack-up spread to the credit card area. The risks in Level 3 portfolios derived from this asset class arise particularly in the areas of complex derivatives and manufactured assets based on credit card debt pools.

# Leveraged buyout bridge loans. After a hiccup in August, the market in these has reopened recently, although around $250 billion of them still remains on banks' balance sheets. The value of a leveraged buyout bridge loan that has failed to find a pier to support the other end of the bridge is very dubious indeed, even though these loans are being carried in the books at or close to par. As the value of underlying assets declines and the cash flow fails to match debt payments, the deterioration in credit quality of these loans will accelerate.

# Asset backed commercial paper. The amount of asset backed commercial paper outstanding has dropped from $1.2 trillion to $900 billion in the last three months. This financing structure was always unsound; it was basically a means of removing the assets backing the commercial paper from bank balance sheets, and always faced the problem of a severe mismatch between asset and liability duration. The $100 billion vehicle intended to rescue this market has found a mixed reception to say the least. It is likely that as credit conditions deteriorate, the assets underlying ABCP vehicles will increasingly find themselves on bank balance sheets, where they will prove to be almost completely unmarketable.

# Complex derivatives contracts. Even simple interest rate swaps and currency swaps caused large losses in the last significant credit tightening in 1994, although most of those losses were suffered by Wall Street's customers rather than Wall Street itself. The more complex transactions that have been devised during the last 12 giddy years are much more likely to prove impossible either to sell or to hedge. Goldman Sachs reported that in the third quarter of 2007 its profits on derivatives used for hedging more or less matched its losses on subprime mortgages. It is likely in reality that the bulk of those profits were incurred through model-based write-ups of value on contracts that were within the Level 3 category - after all, Goldman's Level 3 assets increased by a third during the quarter. It's not much good shorting to match a long position you don't like if your hedging shorts prove to be impossible to close out.

# Credit Default Swaps, the global outstanding value of which in June 2007 was $2.4 trillion, according to the Bank for International Settlements. These are a relatively new instrument, the efficacy of which has not been tested in a downturn. It appears likely that the value in banks' books of their Level 3 credit derivatives contracts bears no relation whatever to reality. As discussed above, the incentives have been all in favor of inflating it.

The capital underlying Wall Street, at the top, is not all that large - a matter of a few hundred billion. Given the piling of risk upon risk that has been engaged in over the last few years, and the size of the losses in the mortgage market alone that seem probable - my own estimate last spring of $980 billion looks increasingly likely to be somewhat below the final figure - it appears almost inevitable that in a bear market in which liquidity dries up and investors become skeptical, Wall Street's capital will be wiped out. Only the commercial banks like Wachovia and Bank of America whose investment banking ambitions have been largely thwarted and whose portfolios of Level 3 rubbish are correspondingly lower, are less likely to disappear...

ATimes (http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/IK03Dj04.html)

[xrayzebra]

I guess my point is that the numbers may sound fantastic but does it affect just a few. Now I am not going to argue that the numbers do indicate that the economy is doing fine rather my point is that no one can argue that a majority of the country is not seeing the benefots from it. To me that's not very honest to not include who exactly is benefiting from the economy. I would have much more respect for yoni's stats if he acknowledged that the middle class isn't necessarily benefiting from it.

I have seen the benefits of it all my life. Life is good
for you and me. Saying otherwise is just plain lying.
You really want to know who isn't seeing the bennies.
Those not working and living off of welfare. You cannot
benefit if you aren't working.

[Wild Cobra]

Yesterday I heard a report that the public opinion about "the direction the country was headed in" reached a 15 year low.

Yep, the media is real good at brainwashing people.

[Wild Cobra]

Next tsunami about to hit wall street...

Well, they can make those predictions if they like. I see semi-regular and frequent short term downs in the market for a few specific reasons, with quick recovery, and nominal growth over the long term.

Those items listed are hot large enough to affect the market, unless they can scare investors like they appear to be attempting.

[RandomGuy]

I guess my point is that the numbers may sound fantastic but does it affect just a few. Now I am not going to argue that the numbers do indicate that the economy is doing fine rather my point is that no one can argue that a majority of the country is not seeing the benefots from it. To me that's not very honest to not include who exactly is benefiting from the economy. I would have much more respect for yoni's stats if he acknowledged that the middle class isn't necessarily benefiting from it.

166,000 jobs without health insurance, paid sick days, or retirement benefits. yay. ;)

[spurster]

If the elections were about the current state of the economy, the GOP would win easily.

[xrayzebra]

166,000 jobs without health insurance, paid sick days, or retirement benefits. yay. ;)

Oh jobs equate to health insurance, paid sick days and
retirement bennies. I thought business was in business
to make money and PROVIDE jobs. Didn't know they
were in the socialism industry.

[boutons_]

"the GOP would win easily."

Your opinion varies diametrically with a majority of Americans:

"Americans are increasingly downcast about the state of the economy."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/03/AR2007110301306.html?nav=most_emailed

Of course, if you're part of the super-rich, you're very happy about your tax cuts, and basically don't care about the economy. or a job, because "you've got yours" so well you can buy anything you want.

[George Gervin's Afro]

166,000 jobs without health insurance, paid sick days, or retirement benefits. yay. ;)


well they better be putting together an IRA because we don't to support their asses when they retire. they also better pay for their healthcare because they shouldn't expect their govt to be there for them.

[xrayzebra]

well they better be putting together an IRA because we don't to support their asses when they retire. they also better pay for their healthcare because they shouldn't expect their govt to be there for them.

Gee I had a couple myself this afternoon, but you post
doesn't make much sense.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Gee I had a couple myself this afternoon, but you post
doesn't make much sense.


you don't get it ray? i am playing a happy conservative republican.. :spin

[Yonivore]

well they better be putting together an IRA because we don't to support their asses when they retire. they also better pay for their healthcare because they shouldn't expect their govt to be there for them.
Good advice.

[spurster]

I just think Bush has f----d up Iraq so badly that people will find fault in everything else he touches.

[boutons_]

'will find fault in everything else he touches."

... because there is fault in everything dubya has touch. Inverse Midas touch.

[Yonivore]

I just think Bush has f----d up Iraq so badly that people will find fault in everything else he touches.
I don't think Iraq is as fucked up as you think.

[Walter Craparita]

well they better be putting together an IRA because we don't to support their asses when they retire. they also better pay for their healthcare because they shouldn't expect their govt to be there for them.

Funny because it is true.

Oh jobs equate to health insurance, paid sick days and
retirement bennies. I thought business was in business
to make money and PROVIDE jobs. Didn't know they
were in the socialism industry.

No shit right. Homeboy needs to quit buying HDTVs and put some money into an IRA.

90% of kids these days don't understand that 40 years of compounded interest in a rothIRA THAT THE GOVERNMENT CAN'T TOUCH > financing those 22" rims on your 300c Bentley wannabe.

Let the economy turn to shit...some people are able to make most of their money during these times.

I'm sure Hillary will save the economy LOL :toast If increasing taxes and attacking the upper class while you really hurt the middle class doesn't fix it...I don't know what will. :clap

One day it'll just be upper class and lower class. Those who were smart and adapted...and those who will rely on the government for everything.

[101A]

... and basically don't care about the economy. or a job, because "you've got yours" ...
That sums up EVERYBODY Boutons, and that is the point.


Everyone is self-interested, and can't see much beyond their own pocketbook. That's why socialism is a drag on an economy, and why it will always, eventually, doom one.

[boutons_]

"socialism"

what is that? and how is America socialist? and why is socialism bad?

aka, I'm calling your bluff as all y'all spew right-wing straw-man words and code phrases

[101A]

"socialism"

what is that? and how is America socialist? and why is socialism bad?

aka, I'm calling your bluff as all y'all spew right-wing straw-man words and code phrasesSocialism, according to Webster:


any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
Socialism isn't bad per se. The problem with socialism is it does not give an INDIVIDUAL the ability to fully reap the rewards of his or her own fortune or work. It does not provide enough incintive to self-interested people to be productive; therefore production suffers. The vast majority of people are motivated not by the common good, but by personal gain. As a major proponent and believer in evolution, I would think you would recognize this truism.

So, the more the government, or society, takes of a person's fruits, the more that person will be disinclined to produce more fruit. Couple that with the general wastefulness of beuracratic organizations and resources, and you have a compound problem of economic stagnation and inefficiency.

There are obviously thresholds at work in this, and the production changes might be subtle; but at the extremes, the results are OBVIOUS.

[101A]

In fact, Boutons, your own arguments support what I am saying.

The economic news looks good, yet most people claim that they don't think the economy is good because of THEIR OWN CIRCUMSTANCES! They can't see beyond the nose at the end of their face.


So they sit around and bitch about the president or the government, or some outside factor that is keeping them down! What would happen if they were told (or simply realized) that NOTHING WAS GOING TO CHANGE, THAT THEIR LOT IN LIFE WILL NOT IMPROVE UNTIL THEY DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT THEMSELVES? I bet more than is happening waiting for the president to be swapped out, and for the government to magically make them change places with that doctor down the street (or I guess as a conciliation prize, we can just make the doctor sell his Lexus; that'll make us feel better .

[Yonivore]

Maybe if you told him the "Grasshopper and the Ant" story, he'd better understand.

Or, he could rent "A Bug's Life."

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

Yay, new jobs. Who gives a fuck?

The bigger concern is the fact the dollar is on its way to being worth about as much as a peso, and our government (that means both sides of the aisle) isn't doing shit to address it, just printing more money, lowering the prime interest rate, and bailing out people with credit problems.

It's really going to suck when the credit bubble finally bursts, it may make the Great Depression look like a bump in the road.

[101A]

The bigger concern is the fact the dollar is on its way to being worth about as much as a peso, and our government (that means both sides of the aisle) isn't doing shit to address it, just printing more money, lowering the prime interest rate, and bailing out people with credit problems.This is fact.

Buy Euros

[boutons_]

"isn't doing shit"

maybe the $'s value is out of the hands of the US govt?

Lowering interest to prop up the scamming financial industry doesn't help the $ value.

US exports are cheaper, and foreign investors are pouring many $Bs into USA.

The situation is very complex. Bogus "pride" in a "strong $" doesn't help.

[101A]

"isn't doing shit"

maybe the $'s value is out of the hands of the US govt?

Lowering interest to prop up the scamming financial industry doesn't help the $ value.

US exports are cheaper, and foreign investors are pouring many $Bs into USA.

The situation is very complex. Bogus "pride" in a "strong $" doesn't help.
That was a sidetrack, B. I thought we were talking about the merits of Socialism. You accused me of setting up a straw man, I proved you were full of crap....you're next.

[PixelPusher]

Socialism, according to Webster:

any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
No mention of "services"? (Health Care)


Socialism isn't bad per se. The problem with socialism is it does not give an INDIVIDUAL the ability to fully reap the rewards of his or her own fortune or work. It does not provide enough incintive to self-interested people to be productive; therefore production suffers. The vast majority of people are motivated not by the common good, but by personal gain. As a major proponent and believer in evolution, I would think you would recognize this truism.

The problem with this line of thinking is it wrongly ascribes artifice to governments and the instict for the common good even while you ascribes "nature" to free trade and self interest. If people were really as completely self interested and as you claim, governments, societies, even family units wouldn't exist.

Here's a crazy, heretical idea...maybe the psychological makeup of human beings are a little more complicated than your cloistered economics professor thinks they are. Maybe humans exhibit a variety of insticts, many of which seem to contradict each other. Maybe animals with instincts that drive them to work together socially have an evolutionary advantage.

[101A]

No mention of "services"? (Health Care)I would say those would be included



The problem with this line of thinking is it wrongly ascribes artifice to governments and the instict for the common good even while you ascribes "nature" to free trade and self interest. If people were really as completely self interested and as you claim, governments, societies, even family units wouldn't exist.I didn't start from the psychological as you suggest; I used the evidence of the extreme economic structures that have existed in the past 200 years. We have had nearly unabashed, unabated, dog-eat-dog capitilism, replete with sweat shops and child labor; and we have had total government control of the means of production, the distribution of wealth, and the ownership of property. The relative economic, and innovative success of those two ideologies, in practice, led me to the conclusion I have drawn. If you see some other conclusion there, let me know.



Here's a crazy, heretical idea...maybe the psychological makeup of human beings are a little more complicated than your cloistered economics professor thinks they are. Maybe humans exhibit a variety of insticts, many of which seem to contradict each other. Maybe animals with instincts that drive them to work together socially have an evolutionary advantage.LOL. Got my degree 20 years ago, and NEVER took an economics course. From a cloistered professor or otherwise. Enlightened self-interest certainly exists, and our brains are certainly capable of understanding the necessity of community, government, and beyond. However, as a motivator to generate economic gain and "progress"; nothing is better than greed.

[boutons_]

wikipedia:

"Socialism refers to a broad array of doctrines or political movements that visualize a socio-economic system in which property and the distribution of wealth are subject to control by the community for the purposes of increasing social and economic equality and cooperation."

... or the dictionary definition,
is what we have in USA?
is what the Dems are proposing?

Of course not, socialism is just another slime term spewed at non-right-wingers to confuse, over-simplify, polarize, inflame.

btw, if you want an example of confiscatory socialism, google for the US govt attempt to confiscate millions of acres of private property in Colorado, to feed the Army monster.

[101A]

wikipedia:

"Socialism refers to a broad array of doctrines or political movements that visualize a socio-economic system in which property and the distribution of wealth are subject to control by the community for the purposes of increasing social and economic equality and cooperation."

... or the dictionary definition,
is what we have in USA?
is what the Dems are proposing?

Of course not, socialism is just another slime term spewed at non-right-wingers to confuse, over-simplify, polarize, inflame.

btw, if you want an example of confiscatory socialism, google for the US govt attempt to confiscate millions of acres of private property in Colorado, to feed the Army monster.That's a GOOD example of government control run amok. Thank you. We agree that Socialim is generally NOT something that we would want to work toward. It will bring more of the same.

[Wild Cobra]

That's a GOOD example of government control run amok. Thank you. We agree that Socialim is generally NOT something that we would want to work toward. It will bring more of the same.
Exactly, and what the democrats want more of.

Think about who has to pay for all these programs they want to "help the people" with! Us, that right, the tax payers. Don't be fooled by where they get the taxes from. In the end, consumers pay for the tax hikes.

How many social programs has Hillary proposed? How many programs have the republican candidates proposed? How many has president Bush proposed? There is a vast difference.

[scott]

Real per capital income (the true measure of the standard of living) is down since Bush took office, but this is somehow a victory?

[JoeChalupa]

Exactly, and what the democrats want more of.

Think about who has to pay for all these programs they want to "help the people" with! Us, that right, the tax payers. Don't be fooled by where they get the taxes from. In the end, consumers pay for the tax hikes.

How many social programs has Hillary proposed? How many programs have the republican candidates proposed? How many has president Bush proposed? There is a vast difference.

Who is going to pay to help all the home owners who screwed up and bought a home with a ARM and Bush wants to help out?

[Wild Cobra]

Who is going to pay to help all the home owners who screwed up and bought a home with a ARM and Bush wants to help out?
I am not in favor of freezing rates. I believe in the free market.

I'm not sure what the effect will be, but I cannot believe it will be good. I have little compassion for those who gave bad loans, and those who took out bad loans. Sometimes the best lessons in life are the hard ones. Why should everyone else help share the burden of other poor choices?

[LaMarcus Bryant]

So has the gap between rich and poor widened or closed? Is the middle class falling behind or experiencing growth in wages after adjusted for inflation?

Rushmore bound, i saidddd

[Clandestino]

i love how these posters complain how the government can't be trusted, is full of shit, etc.. yet, 2 posts later they want the government to run their healthcare!

:lol

[leemajors]

does anyone else remember the 80s electro song by Project Future called " Ray Gun Nomics"? watch it trickle.

[boutons_]

I love how clanny confounds political operators in the Exec with govt run healthcare, eg, VA.

I love how clanny, implicitly, trusts for-profit health care with his health care, when in fact for-profit health care's priority #1 - #3 is profit, not his health.

[Wild Cobra]

i love how these posters complain how the government can't be trusted, is full of shit, etc.. yet, 2 posts later they want the government to run their healthcare!

:lol
I know...

Isn't that a gas?

I wonder what their sanity level is?

[Clandestino]

I love how clanny confounds political operators in the Exec with govt run healthcare, eg, VA.

I love how clanny, implicitly, trusts for-profit health care with his health care, when in fact for-profit health care's priority #1 - #3 is profit, not his health.

then you don't understand business. a for profit company has to treat its customers right... bc what happens if they don't??? then customers leave... and they do what??? LOSE PROFITS... so, they do the best job they can to keep customers and shareholders happy.

when was the last time you were treated at a VA hospital? I have my VA card, but I have only gone ONE TIME... I would rather pay money then get my healthcare for "free" at the VA government run hospital.

and boutons, you're the one of the first dumbass to post threads about the VA not taking care of the troops... you crack me up.. now you want the government taking of your lazy ass! :lol

[Nbadan]

i love how these posters complain how the government can't be trusted, is full of shit, etc.. yet, 2 posts later they want the government to run their healthcare!

:lol


Isn't our military run by the government? What about health-care for military personnel and even Congress...all run by the government...not that your straw man argument held any water in the first place....just saying...

[boutons_]

"then you don't understand business."

... proving that you are such a ideololgical-dumbfucktard that you can't comprehend NOT-for-profit healthcare.

Here's a bunch communist/socialist hippie assholes and jerkoffs' recommendations fo the US health after they compared it with other industrialized countries' national health plans:

http://www.annals.org/content/vol0/issue2007/images/large/196FF6.jpeg

http://www.annals.org/cgi/content/full/0000605-200801010-00196v1


For-profit health care means the maximum amount of profit for the least-amount of product delivered, just as it does for any for-profit business. Other sophisticated countries have promoted health care up to a "human right" for the citizens, while the US has decided that health care is not a human right, but just another consumer product, for which a family of four will pay $10K year forever (and it's inflating faster than inflation) forever. The industry care industry makes a bundle, the consumers get bled, just like any other for-profit business.

[xrayzebra]

"then you don't understand business."

... proving that you are such a ideololgical-dumbfucktard that you can't comprehend NOT-for-profit healthcare.

Here's a bunch so communist/socialist hippie assholes and jerkoffs' recommendations fo the US health after they compared it with other industrialized countries' national health plans:

http://www.annals.org/content/vol0/issue2007/images/large/196FF6.jpeg

http://www.annals.org/cgi/content/full/0000605-200801010-00196v1


For-profit health care means the maximum amount of profit for the least-amount of product delivered, just as it does for any for-profit business. Other sophisticated countries have promoted health care up to a "human right" for the citizens, while the US has decided that health care is not a human right, but just another consumer product.

So should the government buy cars/TV's/houses as
basic human rights. If not, why?

So if someone comes over to your house sticks a gun
under your nose and says that give me money so I
can go to the doctor it would be okay?

Because that more or less what you are telling me
I should do, just fork over money to the government
to give to someone else for their health care, housing
needs, cars, tv's or whatever else they/you decide
is a basic need/human right. Now, I await you
reply or others that tell me how cold a human being
I am and selfish and just plain mean to say all these
things. But you tell me, where does it stop?

[xrayzebra]

Here boutons, is another column by Dr. Williams you might
find informative. It says it lot better than I did in the above post.



Jewish World Review Nov. 28, 2007 / 18 Kislev 5768

Bitter partisan politics

By Walter Williams




http://www.JewishWorldReview.com | Some people complain about bitter partisan politics. I welcome it. The greater the number of decisions made in the political arena the greater the conflict. Let's look at it by way of a few examples:


I like the Lexus LS 460. I also like Dell computers. Many other people have a different set of preferences. Some might prefer a Cadillac and an HP computer while others prefer a Chrysler and IBM computer. With these strong preferences for particular cars and computers, we never see people arguing or fighting in an effort to impose their preferences for cars and computers on other people. There's car and computer peace. Why? You buy the car and computer that you want; I do likewise and we remain friends.


There's absolutely no reason for car and computer choices to remain peaceful. Suppose our car and computer choices were made in the political arena through representative democracy or through a plebiscite where majority ruled. We would decide collectively whether our cars would be Lexuses or Cadillacs or Chryslers. We also would decide collectively whether our computer would be a Dell or HP or IBM computer.


I guarantee you there would be nasty, bitter conflict between otherwise peaceful car and computer buyers. Each person would have reason to enter into conflict with those having different car and computer tastes because one person's win would necessarily be another person's loss. It would be what game theorists call a zero-sum game. How would you broker a peace with these parties in conflict? If you're not a tyrant, I'm betting you'd say, "Take the decision out of the political arena and let people buy whatever car and computer they wish."

Donate to JWR


Prayers in school, sex education and "intelligent design" are contentious school issues. I believe parents should have the right to decide whether their children will say a morning prayer in school, be taught "intelligent design" and not be given school-based sex education. I also believe other parents should have the right not to have their children exposed to prayers in school, "intelligent design" and receive sex education.


The reason why these issues produce conflict is because education is government-produced. That means there's either going to be prayers or no prayers, "intelligent design" or no "intelligent design" and sex education or no sex education. If one parent has his wishes met, it comes at the expense of another parent's wishes. The losing parent either must grin and bear it or send his child to a private school, pay its tuition and still pay property taxes for a school for which he has no use.


Just as in the car and computer examples, the solution is to take the production of education out of the political arena. The best way is to end all government involvement in education. Failing to get government completely out of education, we should recognize that because government finances something it doesn't follow that government must produce it. Government finances F-22 Raptor fighter jets, but there's no government factory producing them. The same could be done in education. We could finance education collectively through tuition tax credits or educational vouchers, but allow parents to choose, much like we did with the GI Bill. Government financed the education, but the veterans chose the school.


Government allocation of resources enhances the potential for human conflict, while market allocation reduces it. That also applies to contentious national issues such as Social Security and health care. You take care of your retirement and health care as you please, and I'll take care of mine as I please. If you prefer socialized retirement and health care, that's fine if you don't force others to participate. I'm afraid most Americans view such a liberty-oriented solution with hostility. They believe they have a right to enlist the brute forces of government to impose their preferences on others.

[clambake]

my favorite walter williams story is the one that argues our soldiers lives are being traded for quarts of oil. the arguement is about ones favorite brand.....mobil 1....castro....penzoil...etc.....and who should be in charge of choosing just one.