|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Which candidate do you think would be the worst president? |
| Barack Obama |
|
12% |
[ 6 ] |
| Mitt Romney |
|
4% |
[ 2 ] |
| Newt Gingrich |
|
22% |
[ 11 ] |
| Rick Santorum |
|
41% |
[ 20 ] |
| Ron Paul |
|
18% |
[ 9 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 48 |
|
| Author |
Message |
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
 Posted: Wed Feb 22, 2012 6:47 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| rollo wrote: |
| Obama has proven that he can handle the presidency. He has an excellent temperment for the position and that is very important. |
His vision at home is flawed, and his domestic policy thus far has been lackluster. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
pkang0202
Joined: 09 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 22, 2012 5:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| rollo wrote: |
| Obama has proven that he can handle the presidency. He has an excellent temperment for the position and that is very important. |
His vision at home is flawed, and his domestic policy thus far has been lackluster. |
His economic policy is a complete disaster. The man has NO IDEA how macroeconomics work. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sallymonster
Joined: 06 Feb 2010
Location: Seattle area
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 23, 2012 5:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
I voted Santorum for this poll. I don't need anyone, let alone the government, telling me what I can and cannot do with my own body, and what I can and cannot do with (an)other consenting adult(s). A vote for Santorum in this year's presidential election is a vote for the government in your bedroom!
Also, I have very little respect for homophobes. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 23, 2012 5:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
| pkang0202 wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
| rollo wrote: |
| Obama has proven that he can handle the presidency. He has an excellent temperment for the position and that is very important. |
His vision at home is flawed, and his domestic policy thus far has been lackluster. |
His economic policy is a complete disaster. The man has NO IDEA how macroeconomics work. |
So what would you propose instead? Europe (especially the UK) is showing that fiscal austerity might not be quite the answer that the Austrian School and Mises followers think it is.
While I'm not a big fan of Obama's economic policies, I would hardly call them a complete disaster. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 23, 2012 7:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
People who voted Paul as 'worst candidate,' you need some education on US gov't fiscal affairs.
So here it is, the CRFB report on GOP candidates and their potential impact on the US budget.
You'll note that this parallels my general assessment of the candidates: Gingrich is the worst (debt 114% of GDP by 2021), followed closely by Santorum (104% of GDP), and Paul is the least worst (debt 76% of GDP), followed by Romney (debt 87% of GDP by 2021). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jaykimf
Joined: 24 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
People who voted Paul as 'worst candidate,' you need some education on US gov't fiscal affairs.
So here it is, the CRFB report on GOP candidates and their potential impact on the US budget.
You'll note that this parallels my general assessment of the candidates: Gingrich is the worst (debt 114% of GDP by 2021), followed closely by Santorum (104% of GDP), and Paul is the least worst (debt 76% of GDP), followed by Romney (debt 87% of GDP by 2021). |
The CRFB report's methodology:
| Quote: |
As is normal scoring convention, estimates do not account for any potential macrodynamic effects; in other
words, do not incorporate the impact a policy might have on strengthening or weakening overall economic
growth. |
Paul Krugman on Ron Paul:
| Quote: |
| Now, it�s still very unlikely that Ron Paul will become president. But, as I said, his economic doctrine has, in effect, become the official G.O.P. line, despite having been proved utterly wrong by events. And what will happen if that doctrine actually ends up being put into action? Great Depression, here we come. |
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/16/opinion/gop-monetary-madness.html
Slashing government spending to address the debt problem without considering the potentially disastrous macrodynamic effects is absurd. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
| jaykimf wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
People who voted Paul as 'worst candidate,' you need some education on US gov't fiscal affairs.
So here it is, the CRFB report on GOP candidates and their potential impact on the US budget.
You'll note that this parallels my general assessment of the candidates: Gingrich is the worst (debt 114% of GDP by 2021), followed closely by Santorum (104% of GDP), and Paul is the least worst (debt 76% of GDP), followed by Romney (debt 87% of GDP by 2021). |
The CRFB report's methodology:
| Quote: |
As is normal scoring convention, estimates do not account for any potential macrodynamic effects; in other
words, do not incorporate the impact a policy might have on strengthening or weakening overall economic
growth. |
Paul Krugman on Ron Paul:
| Quote: |
| Now, it�s still very unlikely that Ron Paul will become president. But, as I said, his economic doctrine has, in effect, become the official G.O.P. line, despite having been proved utterly wrong by events. And what will happen if that doctrine actually ends up being put into action? Great Depression, here we come. |
Slashing government spending to address the debt problem without considering the potentially disastrous macrodynamic effects is absurd. |
Jaykimf,
We cannot accurately measure the impact a stimulus policy may have on strengthening or weakening overall economic growth. The Obama administration cannot even agree on a baseline from which to extrapolate jobs saved/created by its Stimulus program.
But the effect of growing government debt on economic growth is more ascertainable and certain.
The Impact of High Growing Government Debt on Economic Growth (.pdf)
| Quote: |
| The results across all models show a highly statistically significant non-linear relationship between the government debt ratio and per-captia GDP growth for the 12 pooled euro area countries included in our sample. The debt-to-GDP turning point of this concave relationship (inverted U-shap) is roughly between 90 and 100% on average for the sample, across all models (the threshold for the models using trend GDP is somewhat lower.) This means that, on average for the 12-euro area countries, government debt-to-GDP ratios above such threshold would have a negative effect on economic growth. Confidence intervals for the debt turning point suggest that the negative growth effect of high debt may start already from levels of around 70-80% of GDP, which calls for even more prudent indebtedness policies. We also find evidence that the annual change of the public debt ratio and the budget deficit-to-GDP ratio are negatively and linearly associated with per-capita GDP growth. |
Yes, stimulus programs probably do help economic growth in the short-term. But this must be measured against any increased sovereign debt levels incurred by the same stimulus programs. Krugman refuses to do this for ideological reasons.
Ron Paul's plan isn't perfect. I call him the 'least worst' of the candidates. He should consider raising taxes by implementing the tax reforms of Simpson-Bowles. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jaykimf
Joined: 24 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 23, 2012 11:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
Yes, stimulus programs probably do help economic growth in the short-term. But this must be measured against any increased sovereign debt levels incurred by the same stimulus programs.. |
But the report attempts no such measure, it simply ignores any measurement. Likewise there is no attempt to measure the de-stimulative effects of austerity measures, they are not measured, they are ignored.
| Kuros wrote: |
| Krugman refuses to do this for ideological reasons. |
No, He rightly points out that the austerity measures the Europeans adopted in 2010, have been a disaster. It is the ECB's policies that have not measured up. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/20/opinion/krugman-pain-without-gain.html?ref=paulkrugman
Furthermore, the 2010 ECB paper you referenced concludes:
| Quote: |
It should be noted that the econometric results and the economic interpretation rest on the
analysis of the long time period since 1970. Thus they apply to what could be broadly called
�normal� economic times, some short-term disruptions in past decades notwithstanding.
Recent fiscal and financial market developments for some countries carry characteristics of
crisis situations which call for emergency policy responses. While, ideally, the long-term
economic relationships established in the literature should provide the basis also for such
short-term policy strategies, their value for concrete policy decisions may be more limited. |
The austerity measures were the wrong policy at the wrong time.
| Quote: |
| Even austerity�s star pupils, countries that, like Portugal and Ireland, have done everything that was demanded of them, still face sky-high borrowing costs. Why? Because spending cuts have deeply depressed their economies, undermining their tax bases to such an extent that the ratio of debt to G.D.P., the standard indicator of fiscal progress, is getting worse rather than better. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jaykimf
Joined: 24 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 23, 2012 12:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| In the CRFB report Paul would be credited with $ 130billion in savings by De-Federalizing Highway Funding. What would be the result? Roads and bridges not being built or maintained? What effect would that have on our economy? Or would the debt burden simply be shifted to the states? Would that be any better for our economy? Or would the states have massive tax increases? Would that be better? Giving Paul credit for saving $130 billion without considering the consequences seems a little too simplistic for me. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 23, 2012 12:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| bucheon bum wrote: |
| So what would you propose instead? Europe (especially the UK) is showing that fiscal austerity might not be quite the answer that the Austrian School and Mises followers think it is. |
Um, what? The Austrian school is for limiting government expenditure, lowering taxes, and bringing about sound monetary policy. Austerity in Europe is pretty much just the governments (not democratically elected, but rather appointed banker 'technocrats') raising taxes and looting the public to pay for all the debt they accrued when they bailed out the banks for their derivatives frauds. If the Austrian economists had their way those banks would just be liquidated and countries like Greece would just leave the monstrosity that is the Euro, instead of forfeiting their assets (incl. their gold supply) to pay a bunch of banker crooks. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 23, 2012 1:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| jaykimf wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
Yes, stimulus programs probably do help economic growth in the short-term. But this must be measured against any increased sovereign debt levels incurred by the same stimulus programs.. |
But the report attempts no such measure, it simply ignores any measurement. Likewise there is no attempt to measure the de-stimulative effects of austerity measures, they are not measured, they are ignored.
| Kuros wrote: |
| Krugman refuses to do this for ideological reasons. |
No, He rightly points out that the austerity measures the Europeans adopted in 2010, have been a disaster. It is the ECB's policies that have not measured up. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/20/opinion/krugman-pain-without-gain.html?ref=paulkrugman
Furthermore, the 2010 ECB paper you referenced concludes:
| Quote: |
It should be noted that the econometric results and the economic interpretation rest on the
analysis of the long time period since 1970. Thus they apply to what could be broadly called
�normal� economic times, some short-term disruptions in past decades notwithstanding.
Recent fiscal and financial market developments for some countries carry characteristics of
crisis situations which call for emergency policy responses. While, ideally, the long-term
economic relationships established in the literature should provide the basis also for such
short-term policy strategies, their value for concrete policy decisions may be more limited. |
The austerity measures were the wrong policy at the wrong time.
| Quote: |
| Even austerity�s star pupils, countries that, like Portugal and Ireland, have done everything that was demanded of them, still face sky-high borrowing costs. Why? Because spending cuts have deeply depressed their economies, undermining their tax bases to such an extent that the ratio of debt to G.D.P., the standard indicator of fiscal progress, is getting worse rather than better. |
|
Sure, sure, I'm sure European policies over the past 30 years, including significant social spending, high taxes, and heavy borrowing, have little to do with the pain they're experiencing. All the pain must be due to the austerity of the past two and a half years. A lot of these countries had no good options, but Krugman is smugly concluding that therefore the option they chose was the worst one.
Its op-ed shallow sophistry at its worst. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 23, 2012 2:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
Sure, sure, I'm sure European policies over the past 30 years, including significant social spending, high taxes, and heavy borrowing, have little to do with the pain they're experiencing. All the pain must be due to the austerity of the past two and a half years. A lot of these countries had no good options, but Krugman is smugly concluding that therefore the option they chose was the worst one.
Its op-ed shallow sophistry at its worst. |
Krugman is an absolute fool, and beyond discredited. I can't believe his name is even tossed around anymore.
Austerity has nothing to do with putting countries on a sound monetary footing. It has everything to do with squeezing the public to pay off banker debts. The so-called leaders who signed the people on to this cluster-f#% are undemocratically appointed banker technocrats. Some politicians in Germany would even have Greece sell off its national treasures (incl. islands, the Acropolis, and the Parthenon) to pay for the banker debt. Its gold reserves are already at stake. Basically the whole situation is an epic scam for all the ages. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
comm
Joined: 22 Jun 2010
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 23, 2012 3:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The dirty little secret among American politicians is that Keynesian economics doesn't actually advocate unlimited deficit spending. In theory, a government raises taxes in the good times, cutting the tops off of markets and building up a rainy day fund. In market lows, the government then spends that surplus to keep things stable.
Trying to get the benefits of this theory without the downside through debt is an existential gamble and easily the greatest threat to the United States in modern times. If the economy recovers quickly, the debt could be stabilized and crisis temporarily averted. If it doesn't, interest payments increase (currently $500billion/year), repayment becomes impractical, and borrowing costs skyrocket. Even if the economy recovers quickly this time, no politician will advocate for the building of reserves that Keynesian economics actually calls for... which means that sooner or later we'll be in this gambling position again, and sooner or later we will lose big.
Paul's plan would make cuts now that would likely avoid dramatic austerity cuts later. Social Security and Medicare would be preserved entirely, and many Federal programs could be taken over by the States (which are much more fiscally responsible than the Fed). In ten years, Medicare will cost $1 trillion, China will be eclipsing us economically and militarily, and we will need to have low debt to compete. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 23, 2012 3:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| comm wrote: |
| The dirty little secret among American politicians is that Keynesian economics doesn't actually advocate unlimited deficit spending. In theory, a government raises taxes in the good times, cutting the tops off of markets and building up a rainy day fund. In market lows, the government then spends that surplus to keep things stable. |
This is actually true. As untenable as Keynesian theory is, even Keynes himself would have been shocked to see the sort of things the so-called 'Neo-Keynesians' like Krugman have been advocating.
| Quote: |
| In ten years, Medicare will cost $1 trillion, China will be eclipsing us economically and militarily, and we will need to have low debt to compete. |
I agree with the rest of your post, but China will never eclipse the US militarily. Or economically for that matter (worst case is the US goes to hell in a hand basket and China's entire monetary system, backed by trillions in US reserve currency, will fold like a house of cards). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jaykimf
Joined: 24 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 23, 2012 3:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
Sure, sure, I'm sure European policies over the past 30 years, including significant social spending, high taxes, and heavy borrowing, have little to do with the pain they're experiencing. |
I'm not aware of anyone who is making that claim, but even if the opposite is true, it doesn't follow that the austerity policy was a good one.
| Kuros wrote: |
| All the pain must be due to the austerity of the past two and a half years. |
Again, no one is making that claim. Krugman's claim is that the austerity policies have made the situation worse than it otherwise would have been. What has happened since the austerity policies began supports his claim
| Kuros wrote: |
| A lot of these countries had no good options, |
Krugman agrees. http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/23/euro-agonistes/
| Kuros wrote: |
| but Krugman is smugly concluding that therefore the option they chose was the worst one. |
"Smugly" is an unfounded cheap shot. His claim is that the austerity demanded by the ECB and others was wrong and counterproductive, not that the individual countries had much choice in the matter. The facts of what resulted support his claim.
| Kuros wrote: |
| Its op-ed shallow sophistry at its worst. |
Krugman' s position is supported by the actual results of the austerity policies as well as by the main stream body of economic thought over the last 60 years. You may disagree with Krugman, but to label his writings as sophistry reflects poorly on your own shallow analysis and argument. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
