You are the one who accused me of having no knowledge of personal economy. If you wish to discuss macroeconomics, then stay on that subject. If you want to talk about the judiciary, which was the begining of this topic, then you should have avoided economy all together.
Are they kidding?
Either way, Axel, if you think the economy is sluggish and poor right now, you are disagreeing with the federal reserve, wall street, and thousands of analysts who I think are more qualified to judge.
As a student of history I trust nothing to be stable that doesn't remain predictable over the course of a full year. In twelve months tell me the economy is stable, then I will believe you.
Axel wrote:I compare Shrub to my own standards, not those of any other man.
You are still a child, Axel. You have no frame of reference to compare anything with. Your ideal standard exists in your own mind.
Your ad hominem statements also do little do legitimatize your arguments.
I am childish, there is a key difference.
"The approach is, literally, childish. Adults suspend disbelief; kids ask questions and require answers." ~Terry Pratchett
Axel wrote:As a student of history I trust nothing to be stable that doesn't remain predictable over the course of a full year. In twelve months tell me the economy is stable, then I will believe you.
I doubt what kind of student of history you are if you cannot equate the economic downturn of 2001-2003 with 9/11, the demise of the airline industry (which people fail to realize is a significant driving force in our economy), and a dramatic change in people's financial habits due to the fear of terrorism, a war, and uncertainty about the future. And I doubt what kind of economic authority you are if you cannot equate the economic upswing of 2004-2005 with Bush's business friendly economic policies and a general political movement away from the socialist values of the democratic party.
And I doubt what kind of logician you are if you consider almost two years of dramatic economic growth to be unstable.
Also, economies are never completely stable and if you are waiting for a president who provides a constantly growing economy that is never unstable, then you are politically delusional.
axel, you may know a lot about video games, but it is obvious you don't know much about economics. due to this proven fact, i am going to quit posting in this fourm. it is a waste of my time to discuss economics with you.
The economy was on a downturn before 9/11. There is an economic cycle, periods of growth and recession, inflation and unemployment. Everyone should know that. Keynesian economic theory holds that the federal government should work to moderate both ends of the spectrum, keeping inflation and unemployment low. However Adam Smith's "invisible hand," the self-correcting mechanism, ensures that after a long period of recession the economy will again climb.
Shrub overshot before 9/11 and only the fact that the economy plummetted afterwards allowed his attempts any margin of success. That he pushed for making those changes permanent is a sign of how little he understood what he was doing. If his plans were successful then they stimulated the economy and pushed it out of recession, continuing that push would cause inflation. On the other hand, if they don't cause inflation then they were not responsible for stimulating the economy out of the recession. Lose-lose situation.
Starkist wrote: The economy is better now than it was at this point in Clinton's presidency.
This, I'll believe, when my Dad is making nearly the same amount of money he was during those years. He's a software engineer with over two decades of experience, and having worked at Micron(another large software company) and Cadence in senior positions.
He finally found a job(and had move out of state to work) a few months ago, and even that doesn't pay as much as his last job did during the period of 2001-2003, at the worst period of our economy in the Bush Jr. years.
I'm sorry to say that your father is not a good economic indicator.
You can go to hell.
Odd, I thought that was his line.
You can't have your cake and eat it too. Either Bush was responsible for the economic downturn in 2001 or he wasn't responsible for the recovery of 2004-2005. Personally, from what I can tell, the economy is far too complex to be in the hands of one man, and hence, I tend to subscribe to the second option. Not that I'm saying the president doesn't play a role in the economy, but he does not singularly command the economic future of the United States.
There was also the tech bubble burst and all of the corporate scandals which played their roles in what happened in 2001. As for the recovery, being that the economy was doing fine before 2001, isn't it possible that the economy is simply recovering from these crises, and that Bush's policies are not driving it as much as he wants us to believe?
Oh, and I personally hate Bush for being a war-mongering bastard, and death and destruction is a bit much to ask me to overlook, so yeah, maybe I do ignore whatever good he may have done, but it doesn't make up for the evil anyway.
I can't see that he's done any good. However, he was not responsible for the downturn. That was the simple economic cycle, a fact of life. It is his response that is so reprehensible. You see, if his tax cuts brought us out of the recession then making them permanent will cause severe inflation. On the other hand if they did not then they are nothing more than income redistribution.
Income is already being redistributed, as the rich pay 1/3 of their paychecks to the government while the poor pay nothing.
The exact numbers are probably wrong, but this is essentially true. But all Shrub did was shift the burden, assuming he isn't attempting to cause inflation.
starkist and axel, sorry to break it you, but our economy is in the hands on one man. his name is not bush, its alan greenspan. you know, the chairman of the federal reserve board, the man who approves the intrest rates. ya talk about him. if you neglect him and just talk about bush, your views on the nations economy is void.
Hardly. Monetary policy is never quite so effective as fiscal policy, particularly in encouraging the economy to grow.
what are you talking about? greenspan has kept federal reserve rates down to encourage buying. buying increases our economy. you don't pay attention to reality do you?
They have gone up recently. Originally they went down to help recovery after 9/11.
i know. that's a good thing. maybe not for individuals, but for the economy as a whole its good becuase it means that there is once again confidence in the buyer's market. and when there is confidience in the buyer's market, investors are comfortable with investing. yet another piece of evedince that our economy is doing very well.
by the way, how did we rabbit trail this far from the original thread? oh well, its been fun.
Monetary policy is the attempt to use money supply to control the economy. Greenspan has no direct control over interest rates, but by modifying the the supply of money he can change the interest rates. Expansionary monetary policy is less effective than expansionary fiscal policy (which uses taxes and grants to influence demand) because of the economic phenomenon known as "pushing on a string," if people aren't confident then it won't matter what the interest rate is, they won't spend. Monetary policy is also, by deffinition, slow to take effect because it relies on influencing investment and through investment all further demand. However, monetary policy is relatively easy to implement because the Federal Reserve can act quickly. Fiscal policy can act more immediately because it influences consumer spending directly, however since it relies on Congress and the President (who have poltical careers and general ignorance to cope with) can easily be bogged down before implementation.