»
Discussion
»
The Alley
»
Meat, not Herring
| The Alley |
|
Meat, not Herring |
|
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
This would be a good time and place to look at Republican claims that they have a solid economic plan for the country, and that the country should put in a Republican President, a Republican House and a Republican Senate to put that plan into action. It would be nice to know what that Republican plan is and why Republicans think it will work. This would be the chance for Republicans to let the Alley know what they're about and why everybody should vote for them. Let's limit the discussion strictly to economic issues and policy, and let social policty enter into it only insofar as it affects the economics of the situation. If we want to deal with other aspects of the discussion, let's do so in another thread. |
||
| © Copyright 2011 Bob K - All Rights Reserved | |||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
Why limit the discussion to just Republicans, Bob? Neither party is offering anything beyond meaningless sound bites because neither party wants to admit there's not a damn thing they can do they haven't already done. Both are going to be equally helpless. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
True enough, Ron. If you disagree, Bob, perhaps you could begin by laying out the Democrat's sound economic plan. I don't suggest you use the one that they've been using for the past three years...just a thought. WHat you are attempting here is fairly transparent...don't expect too many bites. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
An interesting question, Ron. You may notice that the answers to questions I ask about Republican tactics, plans and history are frequently answered by what might be thought of as attacks on me. Justified or not, they don't answer the questions about the Republican Party. Clearly I have some animus about that party. But that doesn't mean my questions aren't legitimate and don't deserve a legitimate response. Discussing both parties in a single thread simply encourages the same pattern to continue that we have seen previously. I was invited in another thread to bring up issues about economics and the Republican approach to them. Should one desire a look at the Democratic approach, one might read Maynard Keynes and see it pretty much laid out. Should one wish to see a Republican approach to economics, it's fairly difficult to see folks doing anything but making comments about business being a great training ground for government, ignoring the differences between micro and macro-economics. I'm certainly open to somebody wanting to put Keynesian economics up for discussion, sure. But it should have its own thread as well. I believe that there is no coherent theory for Republican economics, and that what that party is doing is simply trying to stooge for the rich without any understanding of what that policy does to the rest of the country. I want to give the Republicans or those here who choose to argue for them the chance to show that this is not so by showing what their economic theory is and how they've acted according to that theory, and how the economy has responded in the way they have predicted it would. That may be a bit long-winded, Ron, but I hope it answers your question. I'm going first because I was more or less pushed to go first. I'll be here for another day or two before another short trip out of town, so there should be time to get at least a little bit said on my part. I would hope I wouldn't be the only one to have questions about the Republican economic history and plan for the country, so my absence should be all that much of a problem for anybody but me. I will miss the company of the folks here. I also must say I disagree about the value of both parties. I think that the Democrats are not unified and are lacking much fire. They are also afraid to be as far to the left as they need to be, which makes them wimpy. If the Republicans took two steps to the right, they'd be royalists; they already appear to support the divine right of the rich and of corporations. Many of them seem to have forgotten the distinction between poverty and sin, and would like to make sure that both are treated as jail-able offenses. They have grafted the religious notion of Original Sin onto the notion of Poverty while espousing the Protestant Work Ethic, which isn't Protestant anyway. Clearly, I'm jaundiced in this case. My rhetoric is running away with my sense. Sorry. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Mike, If you want to address the subject, please feel free. If you want to address my motives, my understanding is that you're supposed to address the post, not the person. There is a great deal to address. Should you wish to talk about Democratic economics, you might start a thread that does that. Paul Krugman seems to do a pretty decent job of talking about what's Democratic economic theory these days, not that the Crats are very good at getting his plans into action. Do you have any current Right Wing economists who're speaking for the Republican's? That they're trying to put into action? Who might they be, and how are their theories connected with the Republicans legislative agenda? How about offering us some nourishment, some facts, instead of a heaping helping of herring? |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Bob, I know enough to know that nothing presented or said here will change a mind, one way or another. I can offer the proof of hundreds of Alley threads in which that has been the case. The thought of presenting a case to convince another on the opposite side of the fence is basically a complete waste of time. For someone to say "show me", knowing that they will not allow themselves to be swayed, leads to the conclusion that they are offering up the challenge in order to dispute whatever someone may present. Don't we have better things to do? After all, it IS almost Christmas.  |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
holy mackerel! I mean red. Not meat. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Why would I want to try to change your mind, Mike? I want to see the Republican case and the Republican facts and theory stripped of all the subject-changing and the let's-do-something-else-right-now-because-this-isn't-the-time-or-place-to-talk-about-it, and the it's-all- the-same-with-everybody, and so on. I don't know if your mind is made up or not. There may be some independants out there who are still mulling the thing over, though, and I think they deserve to see the the beef without being confused by the colorful flying herrings.. You challenged me to try another thread when I attempted to bring this up earlier, didn't you? You don't have to be the guy who presents the Republican case. Anybody can do it as long as they stick to the economics and the theory and the facts. If nobody steps up, that will say something interesting as well, won't it, about the quality of the case to be made on the basis of the facts. If I'm to do any of the responding, I expect that I'll have to do some serious thinking if we actually take this as a real challenge. But not if it's dealt with as a matter of personalities. I'd rather avoid that. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Independants out there who deserve to see the beef?? That's very thoughtful of you, Bob. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Doing my best to keep things Kosher, Mike... Festival of Lights out there tonight, you know. The Talmud suggests that your lights should be visible from the street. I've thought the purpose was to help guide the traveller in the dark as much as to indicate a place where aid might be possible and the potential for light even in times of darkness. Nothing in the part about The Festival of Lights about flying fish, though. Very colorful, large flying fish flopping across the page hoping to change the subject. They may not be deaf, but they're definitely hard of herring. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
I just wish someone would explain Friedman to the Republicants....and that Rand was not an economist. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Ah, how I long for the days when the Alley was just a small group of fellows engaging in goose steps with our left-right-left-right movements. Now that we have become a focal point of the internet, where undecided travelers come from far and wide seeking our output to expand their knowledge of the political landscape, the responsibility of passing along the proper information can be quite an ordeal. Perhaps those seeking such knowledge will one day discover Google and search for answers from varieties of other sources, leaving us alone and free of the yoke presently on our shoulders. One can only hope..... |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
Well I've certainly been swayed who to vote for (for sheriff of Dodge City)  Merry Chrismakwanzikadon. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
REALLY don't want to try to set out anything approaching a Republican economic plan or a solid justification for it, eh? Blame it on the thgread, blame it on the alley. blame it on the pretty flying fish, blame it on . . . oh look, there's somthing other than what the thread's about. Quick! Let's examine it and leave the pesky subject behind. I'll call it a nasty name! Look everybody! Over here. No! No! Over there! Very far away from the subject! Yes, that's right. Now, where were we about Drill ,baby Drill? |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
I find it difficult to believe that one who would address me this way quote: in a situation where I would have been impolite to respond would also have thought that the following made sense quote: Indeed, a google might have offered information in the first case that would have suggested that the stimulus was insufficient according to the economic theory it was based on, that it had been criticized for that by Paul Krugman at the time, and that it was the best the President could negotiate with a congress that was trying to keep him from following any of the economic principles involved at all. It would not be possible as far as I can tell to get a description of the Republican economic theory and policy because there really isn’t one in any coherent sense of the term. Mr. Friedman, a very bright Nobel Prize winning economist, made some contributions to conservative theory but I don’t see how the current Republican policies are tied to his theories. Your suggestion that the information is out there to be scooped up from google is unsupported unless you actually go about the business of supporting it. I would like to see evidence of that instead the suggestion that being asked to show one’s sources is cause for cavalier dismissal of what many people would consider an entirely reasonable request. Indeed, “One can only hope....” And yes, I would still like to know where the jobs are from the Bush tax cuts. The ones from the stimulus evaporated when the House refused to renew the funding and thus not only allowed the various public sector jobs they funded to go under, but allowed those people to be put onto another government program instead, welfare. This process also made the recession worse, I suspect, and to the extent that any of these jobs impacted vital public services, damaged the vital interests of the country. I can tell you why that’s a bad idea economically from the Keynesian perspective. Please, tell me why it was economically a useful move from whichever economic perspective the Republican party is using. How does that help build the economy and help us out of the recession in Republican terms? |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
The ones from the stimulus evaporated when the House refused to renew the funding and thus not only allowed the various public sector jobs they funded to go under, but allowed those people to be put onto another government program instead, welfare. Bob, that's an old Democratic bromide that even the Democrats don't use any more, ever since Obama himself joked about "the shovel-ready jobs maybe not being as shovel-ready as they thought...hahaha." If you're trying to champion the thought that the billions Obama got and did almost nothing with to lower unemployment didn't work because Congress would not give him MORE billions to try to do what he didn't do with the first one...rotsa ruck. He got what he demanded and then blew it...period. Imagine what you would be saying if that were a Republican president's actions and results. It would not be possible as far as I can tell to get a description of the Republican economic theory and policy because there really isn’t one in any coherent sense of the term. THAT is why you haven't received any serious responses to your thread. You are asking for what your mind is made up doesn't exist. You state there isn't one and then dare someone to produce it. In fishing, it's best not to let too much of the hook show if you want to catch fish. I would say your fishing technique is a bit lacking... |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
It's not intended to be a trick question. The Keynsian economics suggests that one puts money into the economy to stimulate it. The closer that money is put into the base of the economy, the more quickly the demand for supporting businesses gets stimulated. Give people money to spend for food and rent, that helps support agriculture and the basic home repair, rental and construction trades. When those people have money, they stimulate some of the manufacturing sector to procuce plows and sheet rock and sinks. When there are enough protections in place to keep that money moving through the economy, the economy starts to move more quickly and recover. When there aren't, too much money comes out in profits and gets socked away in savings and isn't reinvested. That would be the situation we're in now. The excess money is being taken out of the economy and being kept back in private accumulations instead of being reciorculated and allowed to be accululated by a larger proportion of the folks, bringing up the base line from which the entire economy operates. My understanding may be faulty. Somebody else mnay be able to do a better job of offering an explanation, but there it is the way I understand it right now. Surely there is a Republican who is willing to explain the logic of what the Republicans are trying to do in the sense of what their plan is and how it is connected with some sort of economic theory? Otherwise, it appears that the Republican plan is to try to block a logical approach to recovery in the hopes of achieving economic gain for the wealthiest people in the country at the expense of the others simply because they say it will be a good thing and will work out well. These are the same people who are trying to tell us that being a businessman is great preparation for designing and implementing public and foreign policy. I am very much afraid that the Republicans really do believe that leveraged buyouts that throw the employees out on the street while giving the top management goilden parachutes and Government of the people, by the people and for the people are interchangable concepts. Those are the interests they legislate to protect and defend, and they lapse into silence when it comes time to specify how the plans they put forward are designed to help everybody or any really substantive portion of everybody. What is the theory of Republican economics? How does that show itself as policy? What laws are they putting forward to make sure that everybody benefits? Tell me, for example, how health savings accounts are useful for people who don't have money to put into savings accounts? It's a very good idea for people who can afford to insure themselves and can find a tax-free way of doing so. For them, at least as long as there were savings accounts that paid a decent return, it was swell. If you can have a tax-free investment account managed by somebody who's very talented, it might still be a good idea for those who are wealthy. You may well do better than you miught with many insurance plans. But for people who can't afford the savings without help, the whole notion is a cruel hoax. And that's a single example. What sort of economic theory links this with government of the people, by the people and for the people rather than government of everybody, by the privilaged, and to the advantage of the wealthy? |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Thanks for saying my fishing technique is lacking. Yet it appears I've landed yet another large red herring without much effort at all. Rather than somebody willing to talk about what should be perfectly clear, Republican economics, and how it fits with the legislation, especially for, say, the poor, and how it helps them, I get a jibe about my inability to get a Republican to tell me somnething that he should be happy to say. In other words, pay no attention to the way the Republicans are failing the vast majority of the American public and are trying to confuse the rest of them. Instead, pay attention to learning how to please the Republicans. The majority of Bob's attention ought to go to thinking about what he's doibng that makes Republican's uncomfortable and gets in the way of confiding what their economic plans are for Bob and the Rest of the country. Think about that. Let the Republicans do the thinking and voting when it comes to voting. I think I've caught another red herring. What was the economic reasoning behind the Bush Tax cuts? |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Give it up, Bob. Fishing is obviously not your sport |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Otherwise, it appears that the Republican plan is to try to block a logical approach to recovery in the hopes of achieving economic gain for the wealthiest people in the country at the expense of the others simply because they say it will be a good thing and will work out well. Do you really expect an intelligent discussion with that type of rhetoric, the standard democrat soundbytes? Ain't gonna happen? Do you want me to confess I am not an economics expert? Ok, ya got me. I'm just an average joe who can't even square my bank balance at times, just an average joe who looks at every economic indicator and notices that it is worse since Obama took control. Republicans are trying to block a logical approach? What logical approach are you referring to? Certainly not Obama's since his policies have sent us downhill. You do recall Obama saying, when elected, that if he couldn't straighten out the country in 3 years he wouldn't deserve a second term? If this were Japan, he would be being handed a sword about now. What would be a good economic plan? Doing the opposite of what Obama is doing. That should solve it nicely. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: The idea was that if you increase the amount of money in people's pockets they'll spend it. The increase in consumer spending would increase demand for goods and services and businesses, having more free cash, would subsequently expand the workforce and reduce unemployment to meet the demand. The theory is reasonable - on paper. . |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
[Edited - Ron] [This message has been edited by Ron (12-24-2011 11:17 AM).] |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
