Thread: Reaganomics Vs. Obamanomics: Facts And Figures

Originally Posted by DOR

gunnut,

That’s probably the last thing I expected to hear on a forum populated by so many veterans.

But YOU aren't a veteran who served the US military for the United States.

Besides, what does that have to do with anything?

Originally Posted by DOR

How would I measure an economy that no longer stinks of the previous administration’s mismanagement? Oh, there are too many variables to count. Really, it is just about impossible to be serious about such a thing.

Would you accept 5% growth, 2% unemployment, 2% inflation, a 15% household savings rate, a 5% budget surplus, income taxes cut in half, no loopholes for fat cats, serious corporate investment in raising productivity and competitiveness and a balance of payments that doesn’t depend on half a trillion dollar annual capital accounts surplus?

Do you seriously think that is achievable?

Originally Posted by DOR

[
Me, too. But, that isn’t a reasonable measure of anything but a dream.

So, go build your own minimum standard. Mine won’t fit many other people’s priorities.

So you have nothing. You are deflecting the question. You cannot set a stardard of success for the Obama economy because anything Obama can achieve in economic success has already been achieved by Bush's "failed" economy and more. Unemployment, home ownership, growth rate, lower taxes, higher return, even debt, projected debt, and deficit are far better under Bush's economy than Obama.

You should run for political office. You have just enough facts to confuse the average voter and never answer a single question directly.

gunnut,

You cannot set a stardard of success for the Obama economy because anything Obama can achieve in economic success has already been achieved by Bush's "failed" economy and more.

so, by using those standards, would you say clinton's economic stewardship > that of bush's?

i'd say it's silly to try to assign credit for the overall economy to any one president. this is a political question, not an economic one, so it's subjection to interpretation as you see fit. there's simply too many factors involved: whatever credit (or discredit) you want to give to the legislature, overall international economic conditions, foreign policy factors, changing demographics, etc etc etc.

we can pinpoint (kinda-sorta) the effects of certain political actions, but that's about it.

Originally Posted by DOR

You're right, of course.
Mea Culpa.

I'm used to looking at the change in employment, vis-a-vis the change in labor force (the latter drives Hong Kong's unemployment rate by a larger degree than the former; we have no problem creating new jobs), and misspoke.

Apologies.

.

.

.



[gunnut, Jimbo and others should now pick their jaws up off the floor. Yes, I'll admit a mistake.}

I AM astonished.

However I must question how can you possibly make an obvious mistake like that? The rate of change is different than the change itself. Increase by a smaller margin is still an increase. The net number is still getting bigger.

Maybe I'm used to the obfuscation perpetrated by our ruling class in the US. The teachers union in California constantly complain about budget "cuts" when in fact their budget has never been cut before. The "cut" was that the rate of increase was slower than anticipated. Instead of an anticipated $6 billion increase was slowed to a $4 billion increase. The union would complain that's a $2 billion cut and launch a multi million dollar media blitz talking about how the evil conservatives want to rape their children and set them on fire.

Originally Posted by astralis

gunnut,

so, by using those standards, would you say clinton's economic stewardship > that of bush's?

I have never said Clinton's economy was bad. I've only said that the republican congress had something to do with it by holding the line on taxes and budgets and forced Clinton to sign the welfare reform act.

I have also said that Bush spent too much money on domestic programs because of a spend-thrift republican congress that failed to be good stewards of our tax dollars.

If Clinton is the standards you want to use, then let's use Clinton's economy as a standard. When will Obama give us the Clinton economy?

Originally Posted by astralis

i'd say it's silly to try to assign credit for the overall economy to any one president. this is a political question, not an economic one, so it's subjection to interpretation as you see fit. there's simply too many factors involved: whatever credit (or discredit) you want to give to the legislature, overall international economic conditions, foreign policy factors, changing demographics, etc etc etc.

we can pinpoint (kinda-sorta) the effects of certain political actions, but that's about it.

We may not be able to blame everything on Obama, but he sure isn't helping this economy with the pokulus, Obamacare, credit card bill, hundreds of agencies, more regulations, denying permits for energy production, bailing out failed auto companies to rescue his union buddies.... The list goes on and on.

gunnut,

Maybe I'm used to the obfuscation perpetrated by our ruling class in the US. The teachers union in California constantly complain about budget "cuts" when in fact their budget has never been cut before. The "cut" was that the rate of increase was slower than anticipated. Instead of an anticipated $6 billion increase was slowed to a $4 billion increase.

well, yes, and no.

let's imagine a more exaggerated scenario.

let's say that california's population was 10 million in year xxxx and grew at 2% a year. the education budget also grows at roughly the same pace to provide a certain level of service.

then, for some reason or another, the population began to grow at 20% a year instead of 2%. moreover, the increase in the education budget is now set at 1.5% a year instead of 2% a year.

you are absolutely right in that the education budget has not actually "been cut", and is actually still growing. however, do you think that the level of services provided will be the same now? how about after 5 or 10 years?

yes, i realize this is an exaggerated scenario, etc etc. but it also shows a scenario where absolute increase does NOT mean a relative increase, and how this could have an effect not just limited to "government accounting".

How many of those kids entering school speak English,in you hypothetical scenario?

gunnut,

We may not be able to blame everything on Obama, but he sure isn't helping this economy with the pokulus, Obamacare, credit card bill, hundreds of agencies, more regulations, denying permits for energy production, bailing out failed auto companies to rescue his union buddies.... The list goes on and on.

the issue i see here is that there's no empirical evidence of whatever harm he's supposedly doing: how do you isolate the effects of (to take one example) the credit card bill, from, say, the decreased consumer demand across the US/global economy? how about high gas prices from mideast instability?

it's somewhat akin to the economic claims some of the people on obama's economic team made with the stimulus: "if you pass this then the economy will be at x% unemployment, etc". a foolish thing to say.

we just can't figure this out at this time. we need more data to at least get correlation, not even causation. and that comes with time.

Originally Posted by astralis

gunnut,



well, yes, and no.

let's imagine a more exaggerated scenario.

let's say that california's population was 10 million in year xxxx and grew at 2% a year. the education budget also grows at roughly the same pace to provide a certain level of service.

then, for some reason or another, the population began to grow at 20% a year instead of 2%. moreover, the increase in the education budget is now set at 1.5% a year instead of 2% a year.

you are absolutely right in that the education budget has not actually "been cut", and is actually still growing. however, do you think that the level of services provided will be the same now? how about after 5 or 10 years?

yes, i realize this is an exaggerated scenario, etc etc. but it also shows a scenario where absolute increase does NOT mean a relative increase, and how this could have an effect not just limited to "government accounting".

OK, I see your point. However, even adjusted for population increase and inflation, our education budget still had an absolute increase instead of the decrease that the teachers union ads claimed.

Originally Posted by astralis

gunnut,

the issue i see here is that there's no empirical evidence of whatever harm he's supposedly doing: how do you isolate the effects of (to take one example) the credit card bill, from, say, the decreased consumer demand across the US/global economy? how about high gas prices from mideast instability?

it's somewhat akin to the economic claims some of the people on obama's economic team made with the stimulus: "if you pass this then the economy will be at x% unemployment, etc". a foolish thing to say.

we just can't figure this out at this time. we need more data to at least get correlation, not even causation. and that comes with time.

What we need is less government intrusion. Let bad companies file for bankruptcy instead of saving the unions. Stop propping up housing prices with first time buyer credit. Let bad owners default and foreclose their properties. Stop passing out make work projects that benefit political allies. And kill Obamacare. If Obamacare were really good for the country, why grant waivers to individual organizations?

Government intrusions generate unforeseeable consequences. Could anyone have imagined that mandating ethanol in our gasoline could lead to food riots in Mexico? Let people make their own choices. Government micromanage people's everyday lives usually lead to less prosperity.

Originally Posted by Mihais

How many of those kids entering school speak English,in you hypothetical scenario?

*GASP* That's racist!!!