The greatest supply-sider in recent history is....

[DSGE]

Around here people make up their own economic principles and then invent facts to support them and then devise cockamamie policies to implement these fantastic principles and then accuse politicians of being corrupt and incompetent for not following their advice.

This is no country for economists and rational thinkers.

Not with that attitude there isn't! Maybe we should be holding arguments here to a higher standard, rather than tolerating idiocy.

If by "we" you mean you and me then there is no "we".

By "we" I mean "people who post here in general".

Furthermore, this half of the non-existant "we" tolerates all manner of things on this highly redundant routed cesspool, including idiocy. As long as the moderators aren't destroying the board through rampant assfuckery and as long as net-thugs aren't threatening to come burn down my trailer I'm pretty happy.... 10 times better than 90% of the other message boards out there...

Well I'm not cool with that. If "Around here people make up their own economic principles and then invent facts to support them", I don't think a "you have your opinion and I have mine" attitude is helpful. If people are talking bullshit, call them on their bullshit. Yeah this forum is sometimes pretty good. But discussion between people who may disagree but are having an enjoyable conversation is frequently ruined by imbeciles who do exactly what you said. Why the hell would you have the attitude, "oh well, no country for rational thinkers". Do you not think it's better to have the attitude "You're full of shit, Edward. Shut the fuck up, I'm trying to talk to a person here who's not a total moron."?

I just think some of you (itfitzme, I'm talking to you) think that this is some afternoon study group. It isn't. This message board isn't really about "economics" - it's about policy and Wall Street.

Again, you think economic policy can be appraised without an understanding of economic theory?

 

[samjones]

Well I'm not cool with that. If "Around here people make up their own economic principles and then invent facts to support them", I don't think a "you have your opinion and I have mine" attitude is helpful. If people are talking bullshit, call them on their bullshit.

They won't listen. They'll come back with the exact same bullshit 2 days later. Go on over to the "Why Capitalism is DOOMED!" thread and see how much reason you can talk to them.

When this board dictates economic policy for the US, within 5 years we will return to barter as a means of exchange and taxation will be abolished. Furthermore, the debt will be repaid in full by cutting wasteful spending in Washington. Barack Obama will be sent back to his native land of Kenya. Warren Buffet, Tim Geitner, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and a whole buch of others will be made into a real life human centipede available for public view in an area near the steps of the Capitol Building. His Benevolent Royal Highness, King Ron the First will bring peace and prosperity to our land at long last and concealed weapons will be made mandatory for all Americans.

The irony is that Ralph Nader ran because Republicans and Democrats were too alike in his view. Republicans heard and made as many changes as they could to become as unlike the Democrats as possible. Didn't matter how nutty those changes might be.

 

[editec]

Around here people make up their own economic principles and then invent facts to support them and then devise cockamamie policies to implement these fantastic principles and then accuse politicians of being corrupt and incompetent for not following their advice.

This is no country for economists and rational thinkers.

Not with that attitude there isn't! Maybe we should be holding arguments here to a higher standard, rather than tolerating idiocy.

If by "we" you mean you and me then there is no "we". Furthermore, this half of the non-existant "we" tolerates all manner of things on this highly redundant routed cesspool, including idiocy. As long as the moderators aren't destroying the board through rampant assfuckery and as long as net-thugs aren't threatening to come burn down my trailer I'm pretty happy.... 10 times better than 90% of the other message boards out there...

I just think some of you (itfitzme, I'm talking to you) think that this is some afternoon study group. It isn't. This message board isn't really about "economics" - it's about policy and Wall Street. You go ahead and talk about whatever you want as far as I'm concerned, but don't think that you and you alone have the right to post here.... (I'm talking to you Ed).

End of story.

Did I say that you or anybody else doesn't the have right to post nonsense?

Of course not.

I merely pointed out that the premise of this post is based on a dubious definition of the word supply-side.

 

[samjones]

but don't think that you and you alone have the right to post here.... (I'm talking to you Ed).

End of story.

Did I say that you or anybody else doesn't the have right to post nonsense?

Of course not.

I merely pointed out that the premise of this post is based on a dubious definition of the word supply-side.

Not you. I was talking to the other Ed.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

I merely pointed out that the premise of this post is based on a dubious definition of the word supply-side.

the government could have stimulated all the demand they wanted in the stone age and it would have meant nothing. It was supply that needed to be encouraged in any way possible. Now you can understand why intelligent folks are supply-siders.

 

[samjones]

I merely pointed out that the premise of this post is based on a dubious definition of the word supply-side.

the government could have stimulated all the demand they wanted in the stone age and it would have meant nothing.

What are you even trying to say?

So, it would be safe to say that any capital infusion into the economy is bound to have some effect. It would be safe to say that there is a time for both "demand-side" and "supply-side" tax breaks.

Since American big business was majorly bailed out lately I would say we did "supply-side" economic policy enough over the last few years and now it would probably be time to get people buying again.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

What are you even trying to say?

demand side economic is stupid

So, it would be safe to say that any capital infusion into the economy is bound to have some effect.

yes it would create inflation and mal-investment

It would be safe to say that there is a time for both "demand-side" and "supply-side" tax breaks.

how so??

Since American big business was majorly bailed out lately I would say we did "supply-side" economic policy enough over the last few years

if we did it enough we'd have an economic boom rather that a deep recession.

and now it would probably be time to get people buying again.

too stupid but perfectly 100% liberal. You could ship each house $1 million and it would only harm the economy! THere is no magic or no free lunch.

 

[samjones]

Since American big business was majorly bailed out lately I would say we did "supply-side" economic policy enough over the last few years

if we did it enough we'd have an economic boom rather that a deep recession.

I couldn't name a single large US corporation that went bust under Obama. The DJIA doubled.

Banks have been propped up. The auto industry was completely bailed out. All kinds of businesses have received unbelievable government support, seemingly at the expense of the US Government's own financial health.

Are your gripes in any way grounded in reality or are you a 100% fantasy world kind of guy?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Since American big business was majorly bailed out lately I would say we did "supply-side" economic policy enough over the last few years

if we did it enough we'd have an economic boom rather that a deep recession.

I couldn't name a single large US corporation that went bust under Obama. The DJIA doubled.

Banks have been propped up. The auto industry was completely bailed out. All kinds of businesses have received unbelievable government support, seemingly at the expense of the US Government's own financial health.

Are your gripes in any way grounded in reality or are you a 100% fantasy world kind of guy?

unemployment is 8-20%. This is worst economy since Depression. Its been in all the papers. Sorry

 

[regent]

if we did it enough we'd have an economic boom rather that a deep recession.

I couldn't name a single large US corporation that went bust under Obama. The DJIA doubled.

Banks have been propped up. The auto industry was completely bailed out. All kinds of businesses have received unbelievable government support, seemingly at the expense of the US Government's own financial health.

Are your gripes in any way grounded in reality or are you a 100% fantasy world kind of guy?

unemployment is 8-20%. This is worst economy since Depression. Its been in all the papers. Sorry

Yeah, the papers have been reporting how the economy is improving, the Dow is up, unempolyment down, wonder how Republicans are holding up under the good news? If we aren't careful Republicans may start changing the subject from the economy to say contraception or Obama's big ears. With little or no pizazz left in the the communist/socialist thing Republicans seem lost.

 

[samjones]

Yeah, the papers have been reporting how the economy is improving, the Dow is up, unempolyment down, wonder how Republicans are holding up under the good news? If we aren't careful Republicans may start changing the subject from the economy to say contraception or Obama's big ears. With little or no pizazz left in the the communist/socialist thing Republicans seem lost.

I cannot think of a single econmic idea that either Satorum or Romney have floated. I'll give them a break for not talking policy this early in the race - I can't recall them having a single original economic thought.

In the meantime, expect to see the housing market return in '12, albeit, housing prices will remain below their bubble highs. Nonetheless, by election time banks will be lending and people will be buying.

And in response to all this good news Romney is going to say what? Elect me and I'll continue to keep taxes low for me and my rich friends?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

I cannot think of a single econmic idea that either Satorum or Romney have floated.

OMG!!!! They are floating the same idea that China is using to go from liberal en masse starvation to riches beyond belief: more capitalism!

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

, wonder how Republicans are holding up under the good news?

why wonder the polls yesterday showed BO with his worst approval
rating of his presidency.

 

[itfitzme]

, wonder how Republicans are holding up under the good news?

why wonder the polls yesterday showed BO with his worst approval
rating of his presidency.

I'm not sure what that even means.

What is the margin of error for these polls? 3% to 4%. The difference makes it meaningless.

If all you read is the sensationalized headlines, it depends on which report you choose to believe.

1. Obama's approval rating up to 50 percent: Reuters/Ipsos poll
Reuters - 26 minutes ago
The percentage of Americans who disapprove of the Democratic president was 48 ... Some other polls have shown a recent dip in Obama's approval rating, ...

1. President Obama's Approval Plummeting, Says NYT/CBS Poll
PolicyMic - 4 hours ago

Reuters - "The poll, taken March 8-11 on the heels of reports that 227,000 jobs were added to the U.S. economy in February, indicates that Obama's rating has risen by 2 percentage points during the past month. The percentage of Americans who disapprove of the Democratic president was 48 percent, down from 49 percent in February. Some other polls have shown a recent dip in Obama's approval rating, and linked that to rising gasoline prices. But for most Americans, other economic trends during the past month have been relatively positive. Obama appears to be benefiting from that, and perhaps from a bitter Republican presidential campaign that at times has focused on divisive social issues such as abortion"

This one I like.

Huffington Post - "Despite this, the same poll shows that, six weeks later, the approval rating by women of the president has dropped three points, from 53% down to 50%"

It's annoying how that margin of error gets dropped from the secondary reports. They gotta sensationalize to sell product. One reports "The results from the full survey have a margin of sampling error of plus or minus four percentage points"

Washington Post-ABC News Poll (washingtonpost.com)

What is that typical margin of error in polls? Like 3%? 53% +/- 3% compared to 50% +/-3% overlap. One is 50% to 56%, the other 47% to 53%. Even at a 1.5% margin of error, they are too close to be considered different. Basically, the two numbers are not significantly different. With the margin of error accounted for, they are exactly the same.

A better view would be to look at all the polls, the historical data, compare them to the approval trends for past presidents, and put them into context of the events.

Just goes to show you how it's too complicated for a wingnut.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

, wonder how Republicans are holding up under the good news?

why wonder the polls yesterday showed BO with his worst approval
rating of his presidency.

I'm not sure what that even means.

don't ask me ask the liberal MSM who reported it!! I doubt they were biased but rather just picking up the headline numbers as they always do. Only this time they showed BO headed down, much to their extreme disappointment.

Its what we pray for given that BO had two communist parents and voted to the left of Bernie Sanders.

Can you say if you are liberal or conservative and why?? If not why are you wasting your time here?

 

[itfitzme]

why wonder the polls yesterday showed BO with his worst approval
rating of his presidency.

I'm not sure what that even means.

don't ask me ask the liberal MSM who reported it!! I doubt they were biased but rather just picking up the headline numbers as they always do. Only this time they showed BO headed down, much to their extreme disappointment.

Its what we pray for given that BO had two communist parents and voted to the left of Bernie Sanders.

You wrote it. I'm sure the MSM liberal capitalizes the first letter of sentences and ends a question with a question mark.

So, what's the answer to "Why wonder the polls yesterday showed BO with his worst approval rating of his presidency?"

Nope, it's still not making sense. Are we wondering why the polls showed it? Perhaps you should read the article. I bet it answers the question. Then, try putting it into your own words. In a couple of years of doing this, you might actually resemble smart.

Perhaps you mean by comparison to when he was elected, this approval rating is now at about 50/50.

How does that compare to other presidents? Is 50:50 really good by comparison, really bad, or must mediocre?

Here is how you look at a poll, to start, comparing it across time.

It looks like it's down since the beginning of his presidency and up since he has higher dissaproval. Still, over all, it just looks like about 50:50 since the beginning of '09. Not much new there, really.

That's why a single news report just sucks. They sensationalize for morons like you to get you panties all wet. Then you run around yelling "The sky is falling, the sky is falling!"

I'll give you a clue. News outlets are capitalists. They write the news that gets them the readership. What, you think it means something more than that?

Can you say if you are liberal or conservative and why??

Nope, I can't say.

If not why are you wasting your time here?

Because I thought I might find someone intelligent to discuss economics with. Turns out I was wrong. But then, at least it gives me some ideas of things to look at intelligently.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Can you say if you are liberal or conservative and why??

Nope, I can't say.

so you don't vote because you are too confused to know who to vote for? Do you admit to being unfit for democracy?

Because I thought I might find someone intelligent to discuss economics with. Turns out I was wrong.

can you say if you are liberal or conservative about economics?

But then, at least it gives me some ideas of things to look at intelligently.

it seems you want to prove you are more perceptually intelligent than others. What value does that have for you? You could go talk chess somewhere and accomplish the same thing assuming you were good at chess.

Why not try to prove you are more intelligent about the issue the shapes civilization: freedom versus government.