|
|
Post by m52nickerson on Jan 26, 2010 12:27:40 GMT -5
Well with health care reform in political limbo at this moment let us take a look at the US Economy a two different views. First up Jessie Jackson: Forget the deficit; people need jobsJackson basic argument is that the stimulus problem is it was not big enough. He calls for more stimulus and job creation. He also calls the notion that the government can't ask people to balance their budgets with out balancing its own by saying "That is the big lie because, in reality, when everyone else is cutting back, government must step in and put people to work. This will require deficits because tax revenues are down and expenditures on unemployment and food stamps are up." Next up with a man that I respect but share little in common when it comes to political views Ron Paul: Economy flounders, despite the stimulusPaul true to his belief argues that the stimulus has failed because it does not go the root of the problem, easy credit. He also states that businesses that can't please their customers should not be saved but allowed to die. Paul's only hits at what his solution would be, and that is let the market sort itself out. Two very different points of view, each with what I see as some valid points. .....and as a bonus CNN Money's stimulus tracker The Big Bang |
|
|
|
Post by Amaranth on Jan 26, 2010 12:45:17 GMT -5
God, I hate Ron Paul.
Hatred aside, he's the kind of guy who would let the corporates get big in the first place. We'd still end up in the same territory, but with the only real outcome being a crash and full on depression. Not bailing out corporations won't do it. We need to stop them from the capacity to develop to this level, stop them from becoming "too big to fail," and then we don't have to worry about the outcome of their failure, period.
I know this is against Ron's "Let the foxes run the hen house" ideology, but that's just bad policy to begin with.
|
|
|
|
Post by RavynousHunter on Jan 26, 2010 12:47:43 GMT -5
Not to mention a really stupid analogy...
|
|
|
|
Post by Amaranth on Jan 26, 2010 12:59:48 GMT -5
Not to mention a really stupid analogy... k. |
|
|
|
Post by m52nickerson on Jan 26, 2010 13:56:15 GMT -5
As I said I don't agree with Paul's political ideas, but I do think he has some good points as to what the issues are surrounding the collapse.
|
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Jan 26, 2010 15:17:25 GMT -5
I can't argue with Ron Paul's idea of attacking the cause, but credit wasn't the cause, deregulation was. Granted, that's closer to the cause than what I see being addressed, but we need to go deeper.
Also, I love the first one, the government isn't a household, it's not a family, it's a government. You can't apply the same standards to them.
|
|
|
|
Post by m52nickerson on Jan 26, 2010 16:32:02 GMT -5
Well deregulation is what helped lossen credit. So Ron just does not go far enough.
|
|
|
|
Post by Amaranth on Jan 26, 2010 17:45:34 GMT -5
As I said I don't agree with Paul's political ideas, but I do think he has some good points as to what the issues are surrounding the collapse. Except, of course, he's not going for the source (as mentioned), and his "points" still seem to miss the heart of the issue. |
|
|
|
Post by ltfred on Jan 26, 2010 18:04:46 GMT -5
As I said I don't agree with Paul's political ideas, but I do think he has some good points as to what the issues are surrounding the collapse. Fallacy of False Equivilency. One of two arguments are correct- either the disaster was caused by too much growth, inflation and government spending or it was caused by well-documented real things. The argument that is correct, since it knows the fundamental problem, knows how to fix it. The other does not. One cannot stimulate the economy with deficit spending and easy credit, and lock up credit and ban government at the same time. One or the other. Either Friedman Flat-Earthism is correct or Keynesianism is (Edit to add- or some third option is the case, or a modified version of one of the three... you get it). I also note how your spokesman for Keynesianism isn't one of the dozens of Nobel Prize winners (Krugman, Stiglitz, and so on) but someone who is not an economist. It would be like hiring a lawyer to defend evolution theory. |
|
|
|
Post by m52nickerson on Jan 26, 2010 21:19:58 GMT -5
] Except, of course, he's not going for the source (as mentioned), and his "points" still seem to miss the heart of the issue. If I were to guess Paul would argue that the Banks gave to much credit because the Government was insuring them. If the government was not insuring them the there would be no need for regulations. Of course this ignores that facts that banks would then only issue credit to a few, and then greedy institutions would still take risks and end up tanking the economy. |
|
|
|
Post by m52nickerson on Jan 26, 2010 21:25:25 GMT -5
Fallacy of False Equivilency. One of two arguments are correct- either the disaster was caused by too much growth, inflation and government spending or it was caused by well-documented real things. The argument that is correct, since it knows the fundamental problem, knows how to fix it. The other does not. Paul does not state that the problem was created by two much growth, inflation and government spending. No one can't ban government and use deficit spending at the same time. But one can get banking institutions to give credit while making sure they are only doing it to people that can afford it. Don't be puzzled, I was not going for some debate on which system is correct. I merely wanted to point out two article on the same issue from two points of view. |
|
|
|
Post by Amaranth on Jan 27, 2010 1:34:02 GMT -5
] Except, of course, he's not going for the source (as mentioned), and his "points" still seem to miss the heart of the issue. If I were to guess Paul would argue that the Banks gave to much credit because the Government was insuring them. If the government was not insuring them the there would be no need for regulations. Of course this ignores that facts that banks would then only issue credit to a few, and then greedy institutions would still take risks and end up tanking the economy. that's kinda the inherent problem, though. Paul tends to say things that sound great, but gloss over large issues. Sometimes, he goes so far as to suggest things aas though American history is wrong, which particularly amazes me. Shit like when he talks about easing corporate restrictions and labor laws harkens me back to Freshman history, with Pinkertons, 16 hour work days, kids getting mangled by machinery, etc. Not to mention, you've already eliminated my need to reply about the flaws in his logic, so you're already aware. Which is where I'm missing the point of "respect." guy seems like a run-of-the-mill politician at best, just with a slightly different trail of bullshit streaming out of his lips. At worst, he strikes me as a slightly better spoken "Joe the Plumber." ...But I should get back to the issue at hand, the specifics. The problem at hand is that "easy credit" is an "easy target." I'm also a little shaky on the idea that we should have allowed the market to take its course , especially for someone who recites "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness" so often. However comma, that is the outcome he prescribed, one way or another. One could argue, of course, that we shouldn't have backed the banks, shouldn't have regulated in the first place, etc. The biggest problem now is that nothing particularly changes right now because of that, and the bailouts were a symptom of that. Millions of Americans are being punished. Some for stupidity, some completely unjustly, some somewhere in between. |
|
|
|
Post by m52nickerson on Jan 27, 2010 4:42:22 GMT -5
Which is where I'm missing the point of "respect." guy seems like a run-of-the-mill politician at best, just with a slightly different trail of bullshit streaming out of his lips. At worst, he strikes me as a slightly better spoken "Joe the Plumber.". The respect for him comes because he stays above the general fray of name calling and outright lies. He was not standing with other republicans claiming Death Panels or calling any program the Dems like socialist. Than and he is pretty consistent with his ideas even if many are misguided. |
|
