I got fooled.

[Cain]

Roger didn't edit your posts.

Man, you can barely read what happened in a thread, and yet you expect us to take you seriously because you took Economics 101?

[Ari]

Since my understanding of economics, especially US-economics is not the best and therefor mostly irrelevant here I went back to just lurking;(!) but I must say that it has been a most delicious read so far. Keep it going, I might get to add something again later again...

[Triple Zero]

High school textbooks like the New Deal much more than most economists. There is correlation, but not necessarily causation, between the New Deal and America's recovery from the Depression. Take a look back over the history of America's economy and you will notice a trend of roughly 17 year economic cycles on average (from peak to peak). There are two ways to interpret this phenomenon, and which you prefer most likely depends on whether you consider politics or economics to be a more influential force: either a politician has gracefully rescued America every time there has been an economic downturn caused by whomever served two terms before him (else fairly consistent timing of the cycle is purely coincidental), or politics is itself dictated by the stability of the market.

first, i don't think it's an either/or case, and you are being terribly shortsighted for suggesting otherwise.

second, i don't see how "politics is itself dictated by the stability of the market" explains a 17-year cycle, unless you're going to say "apparently, the market has a 17 year cycle", which sounds as less like a rational explanation as the other one.

[Payne]

Meh, my knowledge of Economics is sketchy at best, but I did notice something someone said about every President inheriting a fucked up system.

As I see things this will ALWAYS be true, in some sense.

Here in the U.K., no party that has won an election has ever failed to win the next one. They often fail at the third election.

Meaning (for example) the Tories run the country for a decade, then start to fall apart into blatant corruption, and an ever increasing amount of policies that are designed to look good to the electorate so that they can win the next election.

Predictably, they lose the election to Labour.

Labour can now claim that they have to "undo" the "damage" done by the previous Government, and can ride that for the next 5 or so years, even being able to claim during the next election that the Tories did such a bad job at Governing that Labour is STILL trying to sort out the mess, and therefore the Tories are still completely unelectable. They predictably go on to win this second election.

At this point, Labour HAS to show some kind of improvement in the economy, and in other areas of Governance, or they will lose the third election.

You can switch the party names around, it's always the same.

This is not "cyclical economics", this is political spin playing on the opponents different Economic policies. Each time a party comes into power, they will attack the state the other party left the economy in, and rely on it to win at least a second term.

[Jenne]

Explain to me how Clinton did any of what you just gave him credit for? Aside from appointing Alan Greenspan, which began with Reagan and who Bush Sr. also appointed prior to Clinton. How did Bill Clinton "move the nation from record deficits to record economic surpluses..."? Did he invent the internet and .coms and begin the upward economic trend that was beginning at the end of Bush Sr.'s term? How did he lower unemployment? And what were the economic policies that he himself administered which brought peace and prosperity to the land? Seriously, for lack of image at hand, CITATIONS NEEDED.

I'm not giving Bush Sr. credit for the economic trends of the 1990's either, I'm just trying to point out, once again, that economics have almost nothing to do with the president, and that the belief that they do is a misconception of the general population who know nothing about economics. Economics is a tide: presidents can make some waves, but no president in the history of the US has ever singehandedly turned the tide.

Bull.  Shit.

And, I'll see you your citations needed and raise you a paddling down River of Denial.

Didn't you *just* say Clinton wasn't responsible for the crashes in 2000?  Are presidents responsible for the economy or not?

As for how it happened.  Putting a heavy load on short term capital gains tax trashed investor confidence.  (note I'm not saying taxes are bad, or taxing the rich is bad, just the STCG fucks things up, also keep in mind that this was a record breaking tax hike, little chance to adjust), businesses in turn, did their usual short sighted panicky BS, usually involving layoffs or price hikes, to get that quarters profits up in the name of the stock prices.  A couple years roll by, profits are down because of said stupid decisions, and they did it again, it'll keep happening until the market realizes that short term profits are a bad investment, or the dipshits that keep doing it finally get tossed out on their asses for running too many businesses into the ground.  Along with 8 digit severance packages of course.

All of this of course, starts us on the long road to the US dollar being worth less than Canadian, as international markets realize the US has gone mad.

No, I didn't.  Please point me to where I said Clinton was responsible for nothing.  I think you mistake my own argument for NB's.

And I agree we basically tanked a large part of the American economy (CA's own included, as this is how the majority of its fiscal budget is determined--capital gains taxes, which again means that our state's economy is tied in directly to the stock market...risky business indeed, that) due to reliance on a short-term gain.  However, I have yet to say that economics do not impinge on fiscal policy and vice-versa.  There are roles public policy for each, and many times the balance is tipped either way in some attempt at compensation for perceived shortcomings in what's already there.

Be that as it may, to say that economics solely drives public policy is a lie and a fallacy.  It's used to shore it up, prop it up and give it a foundation AT TIMES...but it's not a stand-alone rubric, and to suggest so is really laughable in the extreme.

But I see your OWN argument must NOT be that presidents don't do fuck all while in power, otherwise you would not have tried to stick me with the above.  Clinton has certainly had his shortcomings (bombings done in the name of "justice" while you are screaming "LIE!  I didn't have sexual relations with that woman!" for starters...and that's the tip of the iceberg), but, and let me be crystal on this point:

HE WAS NO FUCKING GEORGE DUBYA BUSH.

[Jenne]

I think the troll was trying to say that FDR couldn't have turned the economy around without hitler's help.

too bad the New Deal was in place LONG before America got involved in WW2.

High school textbooks like the New Deal much more than most economists. There is correlation, but not necessarily causation, between the New Deal and America's recovery from the Depression. Take a look back over the history of America's economy and you will notice a trend of roughly 17 year economic cycles on average (from peak to peak). There are two ways to interpret this phenomenon, and which you prefer most likely depends on whether you consider politics or economics to be a more influential force: either a politician has gracefully rescued America every time there has been an economic downturn caused by whomever served two terms before him (else fairly consistent timing of the cycle is purely coincidental), or politics is itself dictated by the stability of the market. By my own reasoning, the latter seems the more rational interpretation. Obviously some of your reason differs from mine, and may in fact be valid, but nobody arguing with me has demonstrated to me any reasoning nearly solid enough to be convincing. Believe me, I am perfectly willing to be convinced, only ad hominems and idealistic rants won't do it. Of course there is the old standby, "but nB, why would I care to convince you?" Good question. If you don't, though, why not stop wasting your time? You must have better things to do than sit around jerking off to how much you all disagree with me.

and East Coast Hustle, those are pretty gross words to put in my mouth, particularly considering that if that had been what I meant, the argument would have directly contradicted my position, which is that economic highs and lows would happen entirely independently of political influence. Again, this does not mean that politicians can't have an influence, but you would be hard pressed to find proof that any politician has singlehandedly turned the tide. Google the topic. You'll find a lot of interesting studies. The spam was just a nod to Godwin's Law in response to my being called a NeoCon because somebody happens to disagree with me. On pd.com, calling somebody a NeoCon is roughly equivalent to calling somebody a nazi. I'm still not impressed, and the only people who are "convinced" are people who already agreed with you anyway. Congratulations.

Finally, Roger, I have seen you spam threads for lesser reasons. Hypocrisy is not becoming of you.
Don't edit my posts. Don't be a pussy. If you're going to abuse your mod priveliges, quit fucking around and just ban me. I mean, you can't have Discordians who think differently from yourself running around, can you? Shit no.

Wow you whine alot.

And everything you said sounds like some pat-answer from some "other" h.s. textbook.  Whose theory is it that it's a 17-year cycle?  That one I *will* google.  You apparently have drunk some economist's koolaid.  You DO know, don't you, that economists only focus on one side of the picture?  That they are not PAID to look at anything else but the supply-and-demand side?  That it's the geologists, anthro, law, health and science and poli sci guys that jolt them aside and add to the whole picture?

A large part of what the body politic does and is about has very much to do with goods and services and payment of such.  But to say that all public policy, all legislation has to do with where people buy their groceries, where they bank, where they find their happy places when they jerk off (as you so eloquently put it), is all ONLY tied to  and reliant on $$$$ is a falsehood.  Political influence is so much more than just the money.

I suggest you read up on it some.

[Cain]

Why do I get the feeling nB learnt economics from Milton Friedman's Big Book of Economic Bed Time Stories?

I mean, apart from the fact he gained his economic 'knowledge' in the US, where Chicago school hacks proliferate.

[Triple Zero]

Why do I get the feeling nB learnt economics from Milton Friedman's Big Book of Economic Bed Time Stories?

because it's the only one with the proper use of semicolons?

[LMNO]

First off; nB, it was quite rude to image bomb a thread where there was actually a decent conversation going on.  True, TTM often image bombs, but it's usually in fluff/troll threads, or where the debate had broken down.  It's all in the timing.

Second:  While Clinton might not have fucked the economy directly, the deregulation of the housing market started under his watch.  I would say he's partially responsible for the bubble, which looked great until its inevitable burst.

Not to say that W Bush didn't decide to cut a hole in the nation's economy and fuck the wound; just that the issue is a bit more nuanced, as always, than either/or positions.

[AFK]

What TGRR said.

And also, -10 pts for using the Fox News "messiah" bullshit. 

As a former Obama supporter, I can state the term 'messiah' is completely accurate in the effect he has on his followers.

Let me get this straight.  A candidate has actually evoked strong feelings and passions in people, to the point where they want to be involved in the political process, instead of just being wedged into their Cheetoh encrustec couch, and you wanna go and label them as mindless worshippers?  Has it ever crossed your, oh so enlightened mind, that perhaps, just perhaps, people are so tired of blubbering flesh bags like Bush and Cheney being in charge for 8 years that people are hankering for a different kind of leadership?  Do you expect them to get all hot and bothered by McCain who is all too willing to follow in the footsteps of the man who tarred and feathered his character in 2000?  Do you expect them go get excited about Ralph Nader?  Do you expect them to get excited by Bob fucking Barr? 

Is he going to create some monumental, earth shattering change?  Of course not.  And the Obama supporters I've met and talked to know that.  No, what Obama represents is an end to the monumental suck and fail policies of George W. Bush. 

So go ahead and label that fervor with some tired Fox News talkpoint cliche.  But clearly, sir, you have no fucking idea of what you are talking about. 

[AFK]

What TGRR said.

And also, -10 pts for using the Fox News "messiah" bullshit. 

As a former Obama supporter, I can state the term 'messiah' is completely accurate in the effect he has on his followers.

Honestly, it freaks me out.

Great political insight! 

[Cain]

What TGRR said.

And also, -10 pts for using the Fox News "messiah" bullshit. 

As a former Obama supporter, I can state the term 'messiah' is completely accurate in the effect he has on his followers.

Let me get this straight.  A candidate has actually evoked strong feelings and passions in people, to the point where they want to be involved in the political process, instead of just being wedged into their Cheetoh encrustec couch, and you wanna go and label them as mindless worshippers?  Has it ever crossed your, oh so enlightened mind, that perhaps, just perhaps, people are so tired of blubbering flesh bags like Bush and Cheney being in charge for 8 years that people are hankering for a different kind of leadership?  Do you expect them to get all hot and bothered by McCain who is all too willing to follow in the footsteps of the man who tarred and feathered his character in 2000?  Do you expect them go get excited about Ralph Nader?  Do you expect them to get excited by Bob fucking Barr? 

Is he going to create some monumental, earth shattering change?  Of course not.  And the Obama supporters I've met and talked to know that.  No, what Obama represents is an end to the monumental suck and fail policies of George W. Bush. 

So go ahead and label that fervor with some tired Fox News talkpoint cliche.  But clearly, sir, you have no fucking idea of what you are talking about. 

I've never spoken to such people either.  I know that theoretically they exist, but they are a minority.  Most Obama supporters I know and have conversed with are, as you say, sick of the last 8 years and see a chance for something that is not four more of the same, and are riding that chance as far as it will go and as hard as they can.

Amusingly, the messiah/cultist meme originated on the Clinton/PUMA sites....who have created their own cargo cult around the figure of Hillary.  Its an interesting case of projection.

[LMNO]

Hillary as cargo cult... That's brilliant, Cain.

[Cain]

Hillary as cargo cult... That's brilliant, Cain.

Well the pro-Clinton bloggers who went on to form PUMA are essentially just that.  Its totally removed from cause and effect.  They care more about Clinton as a political figure than they do for her policies - which are closer to Obama than McCain, who they now support.  Its cargo cultism all the way.  They literally watch her speeches for coded messages to show her disapproval of Obama, even when she is praising him.

Its bizzare and a little sad.  And the best reason to pick on PUMA, bar none.

[LMNO]

It should be noted that many PUMAs are Cougars.