Obama's Candidacy

by Pythagorean
Tags: candidacy, obama
P: 18
 Quote by JonDE If you want to look at inflation as a tax, you have to view it as a tax on savings, not on material goods. Material goods prices should increase with inflation while your savings doesn't. This discourages saving. It drives demand up. In the opposite view, deflation has been one of the things that all economist fear most, as it decreases demand. Why buy a house if that house is going to be cheaper tomorrow?
Inflation on material goods can be a tax as well, because the prices of everything are increasing. If the price of food and gasoline are increasing for example, then it can be a tax.

 Also you can't look at future obligations as how it would effect today. First future debt is hugely related to GDP growth which is extremely hard to predict and has continuosly proven the bears wrong on that aspect. Second, it has no effect on today. It is a tool to help plan for the future. Monetary base effects inflation, i.e. real dollars being spent in the economy right now. Not future dollars possibly being spent in the future effecting today.
The debt can very much have an effect on today because it can change people's behavior about the economy. High amounts of debt also create a drag on the economy.
 PF Gold P: 7,363 This thread is getting derailed badly. It's supposed to be about Obama's candidacy. If one wants to discuss the the history of the Fed (which IMO shovels free money at Wall Street to keep the banks happy) please start another thread. Obama isn't responsible for the past ~30 years of collusion between the Fed and Wall Street, nor is he able to change that without a Congress that is not bought and paid for.
 P: 681 CAC, all I can suggest is that you read some economics textbooks, or take some economics classes. You have very strange views of economics. You are making claims that various things are "against 'basic principles of economics'" despite those same things being in literally every macro-economics textbook. If your argument rests on textbook 101 level economics being 'against the principles of economics' than surely you must agree something is wrong with your argument? You are also using a very non-standard (and highly ideological) definition of value/value-added (everything the government creates = not 'wealth', everything the private sector creates = 'wealth').
P: 18
 Quote by ParticleGrl CAC, all I can suggest is that you read some economics textbooks, or take some economics classes. You have very strange views of economics. You are making claims that various things are "against 'basic principles of economics'" despite those same things being in literally every macro-economics textbook. If your argument rests on textbook 101 level economics being 'against the principles of economics' than surely you must agree something is wrong with your argument?
Are you referring to graduate or undergraduate-level economics texts? Because graduate-level economics texts point out most of the flaws with policies such as fiscal stimulus. At the undergraduate-level, things like the IS-LM models and fiscal stimulus and much Keynesianism are taught as standard economic policy. At the graduate level, much of what is taught at the undergraduate level is rejected entirely. So much so that some economists even suggest that if one wants to study economics at the graduate level to not even major in economics as an undergraduate, but to skip it entirely and major in something mathematically-intensive, such as physics or electrical engineering or mathematics. So yes, I would say that, if you are referring to undergraduate macroeconomics texts, much of what is taught in those is wrong.

What I was saying goes against the basic principles of economics is that government taking money out of the economy and injecting it back into the economy (via debt or taxes) is not going to stimulate the economy because it's only moving wealth around. Using taxes or debt to build infrastructure is not going to stimulate the economy. The only exception would be if the infrastructure leads to further economic growth down the line by facilitating business growth and so forth. If you spend $1 trillion to build pyramids, that is just re-distributing wealth to pyramid-building. If those pyramids will somehow lead to massive economic growth in the future, then such building could be an investment.  You are also using a very non-standard (and highly ideological) definition of value/value-added (everything the government creates = not 'wealth', everything the private sector creates = 'wealth'). What is ideological about it? There are different types of value. A police force or a road or a court are not valuable in the same way a business is valuable. A government doesn't make money off of the police force or court or road (with some exceptions if a toll road). If government could create actual wealth, then it wouldn't need to tax. It could be self-funding. But it isn't. In order to build the road or provide the police and court, it must use wealth it takes by force out of the private-sector. It can lay the groundwork so that the private-sector can create more wealth, and it can even aid the private-sector in some ways, but unto itself, government doesn't create wealth. P: 59  Quote by turbo This thread is getting derailed badly. It's supposed to be about Obama's candidacy. If one wants to discuss the the history of the Fed (which IMO shovels free money at Wall Street to keep the banks happy) please start another thread. Obama isn't responsible for the past ~30 years of collusion between the Fed and Wall Street, nor is he able to change that without a Congress that is not bought and paid for. I have to agree with turbo here. We need to focus to get this thread back on topic and off of economic theory. So back on subject, Obama, great president? Or greatest? PF Gold P: 1,941  Quote by JonDE I have to agree with turbo here. We need to focus to get this thread back on topic and off of economic theory. So back on subject, Obama, great president? Or greatest? He's certainly not the greatest president, and I personally wouldn't even call him great, but he's definitely an acceptable president. He inherited some hard times and is pulling through them, albeit slowly.  P: 74 Great? In my opinion you'd have to compare presidents by the ability to take care of the country s/he is currently leading as opposed to comparing president against other president in a previous era/time. Different factors cause for different approaches. With that said, although different factors cause for different approaches, a certain ideology must be upheld and if one contends against it with a rather unjust law, s/he leading should fight against it and not support it under any provisional conditions it may have, even if it is to be passed eventually. Obama didn't do that with the newest version of the NDAA bill. So, no, he is not a great president. Some things should be fundamentally stood against and his, "well, we will make sure we look into cases where citizens of the United States have been detained under suspicion and make sure they are treated fairly and justly tried under these cases" doesn't help. Unless he was participating in game theory and some psychology that in the event he signs this bill, he may garner some support from his opposition in time of his election, only speaks of the character and is more disgusting and should be against any person's ideology. But that sort of thinking (my thinking) may be archaic and impractical, but that is a value I hold up for myself and I don't like people leading me that have values I disagree with fundamentally. P: 59  Quote by phoenix:\\ Great? In my opinion you'd have to compare presidents by the ability to take care of the country s/he is currently leading as opposed to comparing president against other president in a previous era/time. Different factors cause for different approaches. With that said, although different factors cause for different approaches, a certain ideology must be upheld and if one contends against it with a rather unjust law, s/he leading should fight against it and not support it under any provisional conditions it may have, even if it is to be passed eventually. Obama didn't do that with the newest version of the NDAA bill. So, no, he is not a great president. Some things should be fundamentally stood against and his, "well, we will make sure we look into cases where citizens of the United States have been detained under suspicion and make sure they are treated fairly and justly tried under these cases" doesn't help. Unless he was participating in game theory and some psychology that in the event he signs this bill, he may garner some support from his opposition in time of his election, only speaks of the character and is more disgusting and should be against any person's ideology. But that sort of thinking (my thinking) may be archaic and impractical, but that is a value I hold up for myself and I don't like people leading me that have values I disagree with fundamentally. It was intended as a joke. I think I have failed once again to convey humor across the internet. Admin P: 21,808 White House Opens Door to Big Donors, and Lobbyists Slip In http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/15/us...ig-donors.html  A cross-reference of donor lists and visitor logs show that of those who gave$100,000 or more, about three-quarters of them visited the White House.

One of the many things that have surely not changed.
 P: 1,414 Betty White has endorsed Obama.