Mr Natural
Platinum Member
- Aug 23, 2009
- 23,332
- 11,158
- 950
There's be jobs aplenty if only greedy and spoiled American workers would accept wages and benefits commensurate with their third-world counterparts.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
There's be jobs aplenty if only greedy and spoiled American workers would accept wages and benefits commensurate with their third-world counterparts.
There's be jobs aplenty if only greedy and spoiled American workers would accept wages and benefits commensurate with their third-world counterparts.
There's be jobs aplenty if only greedy and spoiled American workers would accept wages and benefits commensurate with their third-world counterparts.
There's be jobs aplenty if only greedy and spoiled American workers would accept wages and benefits commensurate with their third-world counterparts.
By Greedy and Spoiled Americans I assume you mean those Occupy Wall Street bitches.
OK, so it's not a success. But it's not a failure either. What is it, having spent over $1T in deficit spending? A draw?
GDP growth is not the single indicator. There are multiple ones I quoted. All of them suck.
What "Pres McCain" would have done is irrelevant. For the record, his proposals weren't much different from Obama's but I suspect he would do less demonizing of business so recovery would have been better. But that is just speculation. We have no need to speculate on Obama's policies. TGhere is a record. And the record is gross failure: most money spent for worst results.
There's be jobs aplenty if only greedy and spoiled American workers would accept wages and benefits commensurate with their third-world counterparts.
Even though you mean that to be a jab it's actually truer than you know.
The keyword is commensurate. Which you probably don't understand anyway.
If Americans got paid based on their productivity they would earn plenty and there would be jobs out there. Instead some get paid over-market wages because of union protection while the rest stagnate.
WOW you really don't mean that do you? You do realize that the democrats have controlled the government for 60 plus years in part or in whole since 1946.By Larry Kudlow
Host, "The Kudlow Report"
And that brings us to the grim May employment report; the economy added only 69,000 nonfarm jobs last month. Its the third consecutive subpar tally, replete with downward revisions for the two prior months. Its a devastating number for the American economy, and a catastrophic number for Obamas re-election hopes. All momentum on jobs and the economy has evaporated.
Blame it on the Republicans.
Thirty years of policy rigging to serve the rich has taken its toll. The American People have been beaten by the stooges they've sent to Washington. Reagan, Bush1 and Bush2, even Republican lite Bill Clinton. Gingrich, Boehner and a host of others. They're loyalty belongs to the rich and the American People are suffering for it.
Blame (it) on the Republicans.
Thirty years of policy rigging to serve the rich has taken its toll. The American People have been beaten by the stooges they've sent to Washington. Reagan, Bush1 and Bush2, even Republican lite Bill Clinton. Gingrich, Boehner and a host of others. They're loyalty belongs to the rich and the American People are suffering for it.
Lots of blame to go around. And Obama deserves much of it. He has completely sunk many future generations.
Could you give me an idea of what has you so upset with Obama?
I take exception to four things Kudlow says here:
1) Kudlow calls current policy a failure without defining what a success would be. He focuses on GDP. Would Kudlow call it a success if GDP rose but median income fell sharply? Would that really be better for society?
2) Keynesian economics isn't just about spending. Tax cuts are part of Keynesian fiscal policy, so the corporate tax cuts he advocates would be Keynesian stimulus.
3) Our current economic policy simply is not the "Obama model". To suggest that Obama has had free rein to direct economic policy is contrary to reality. Congressional opposition has sharply limited his ability to secure even routine matters such as a debt ceiling increase.
4) Most importantly, Kudlow takes the disappointing jobs numbers as "proof" (a very high standard) that stimulus failed. But of course this month's job numbers are a single data point years after the stimulus increased government spending. Spending as a function of GDP has fallen sharply in the intervening time (US Government Spending As Percent Of GDP United States 2000-2012 - Federal State Local Data) so far from contradicting basic Keynesian predictions, anemic job numbers are expected.
If 2% GDP growth, 8.2% unemployment, record low labor force participation, 0% interest rates, and record deficits are success I'd hate to see your definition of failure.
I didn't say current economic policy was a success. My point was that Kudlow should define success and failure before labeling something as one or the other. For my part, I don't regard GDP growth as the single relevant economic indicator.
And while I agree the economic numbers are bad, I do not regard that as prima facie evidence that economic policy has failed. One country can be much poorer than another and yet manage its economy better. It is entirely possible (to my mind, quite likely) that economic policy under a President McCain, say, would have left the US much worse off than we are today.
No...That is not the point. American industry was handcuffed by unions.There's be jobs aplenty if only greedy and spoiled American workers would accept wages and benefits commensurate with their third-world counterparts.
Even though you mean that to be a jab it's actually truer than you know.
The keyword is commensurate. Which you probably don't understand anyway.
If Americans got paid based on their productivity they would earn plenty and there would be jobs out there. Instead some get paid over-market wages because of union protection while the rest stagnate.
In other words, they make too much.
"Prosperity Through Lower Wages!"
Keynesian economics is an example of the dismal failure of socialism.The Keynesian government-spending model has proven a complete failure. Its the Obama model.
I take exception to four things Kudlow says here:
1) Kudlow calls current policy a failure without defining what a success would be. He focuses on GDP. Would Kudlow call it a success if GDP rose but median income fell sharply? Would that really be better for society?
2) Keynesian economics isn't just about spending. Tax cuts are part of Keynesian fiscal policy, so the corporate tax cuts he advocates would be Keynesian stimulus.
3) Our current economic policy simply is not the "Obama model". To suggest that Obama has had free rein to direct economic policy is contrary to reality. Congressional opposition has sharply limited his ability to secure even routine matters such as a debt ceiling increase.
4) Most importantly, Kudlow takes the disappointing jobs numbers as "proof" (a very high standard) that stimulus failed. But of course this month's job numbers are a single data point years after the stimulus increased government spending. Spending as a function of GDP has fallen sharply in the intervening time (US Government Spending As Percent Of GDP United States 2000-2012 - Federal State Local Data) so far from contradicting basic Keynesian predictions, anemic job numbers are expected.
If 2% GDP growth, 8.2% unemployment, record low labor force participation, 0% interest rates, and record deficits are success I'd hate to see your definition of failure.