for you (I am not mentioning any specific names) elitist liberals who think they are superior to the hard working conservatives of America, and do nothing more than bash and criticize....this is a place where I will post commentaries, links, thoughts and facts, of WHY, in MY opinion, the conservative principals are what is best for America...
My first installment is one of such common sense very well told by Thomas Sowell....read it or not, I don't care, but the HAWK does have a reason for his madness.. :razz:
http://townhall.com/columnists/ThomasSowell/2010/09/08/a_non-prediction/page/full/ (http://townhall.com/columnists/ThomasSowell/2010/09/08/a_non-prediction/page/full/)
A Non-Prediction by
Thomas Sowell (http://theunknownzone.us/columnists/ThomasSowell/)
When people learn that you are an economist, they often want you to predict which way the economy is going. There seem to be more than the usual number of calls for such predictions lately. But an economist should be more aware than others are of how hazardous such predictions can be.
One reason is that what happens in the economy is affected by what politicians do in Washington-- and who can predict what politicians will do?
However, let me go out on a limb, and try to predict what politicians will not do.
What would probably get the economy recovering fastest and most completely would be for the President of the United States and Congressional leaders to shut up and stop meddling with the economy. But it is virtually impossible that they will do that.
Think about telling all the millions of people who have lost their jobs, their homes or their businesses: "I really messed you up but, hey, nobody's perfect. So I'm going to leave things alone now." In fact, that would be hard even to tell yourself.
If the stimulus isn't working, the true believers have to believe that it is only because it hasn't been tried long enough, or with enough money being spent.
There are always calls for the government to "do something" when things are going bad. Those who make such calls have almost never bothered to check out what actually happens when the government does something, as compared to what happens when the government does nothing.
It is not just free market economists who think the government can make a mess bigger with its interventions. It was none other than Karl Marx who wrote to his colleague Engels that "crackbrained meddling by the authorities" can "aggravate an existing crisis."
The history of the United States is full of evidence on the negative effects of government intervention. For the first 150 years of this country's existence, the federal government did not think it was its business to intervene when the economy turned down.
All of those downturns ended faster than the first downturn where the federal government intervened big time-- the Great Depression of the 1930s.
There are two conflicting assumptions about what happened during the Great Depression. The most popular assumption, especially among politicians, is that the market failed and the government had to intervene to save the economy.
Another assumption is that the market went down and was on its way back up when federal intervention sent it down again and led to massive unemployment. If you don't let facts get in the way, you can just pick whichever assumption you like-- and the first assumption wins that popularity contest, hands down.
But, if you look at the facts, they go like this: Unemployment never hit double digits in any of the 12 months following the big stock market crash of 1929 that is often blamed for the massive unemployment of the 1930s. Unemployment peaked at 9 percent, two months after the October 1929 crash, and then began drifting downward.
Unemployment was down to 6.3 percent by June 1930, when the first big federal intervention occurred. Within six months, the downward trend in unemployment reversed and hit double digits for the first time in December 1930.
What were politicians to do? Say "We messed up"? Or keep trying one huge intervention after another? The record shows what they did: President Hoover's interventions were followed by President Roosevelt's bigger interventions-- and unemployment remained in double digits in every month for the entire remainder of the decade.
There is another set of facts: The record that was set in 1929 for the biggest stock market decline in one day was broken in 1987. But Ronald Reagan did nothing-- and the media clobbered him for it.
Then the economy rebounded and there were 20 years of sustained economic growth with low inflation and low unemployment.
Can you imagine Barack Obama doing another Ronald Reagan? I certainly wouldn't predict that.
Question ... why do conservatives think they are the only ones who work hard?
Quote from: Olias on September 08, 2010, 11:01:23 AM
Question ... why do conservatives think they are the only ones who work hard?
that is probably a cheap shot by myself, and I apologize. I know that is not true......and with that said, I too, am tryinig very, very hard to "understand" the left....
Quote from: Henry Hawk on September 08, 2010, 11:03:58 AM
that is probably a cheap shot by myself, and I apologize. I know that is not true......and with that said, I too, am tryinig very, very hard to "understand" the left....
Apology accepted. But understanding does not go well with cheap shots.
Quote from: Olias on September 08, 2010, 11:39:56 AM
Apology accepted. But understanding does not go well with cheap shots.
I'm working on that, I really am....but, I have had my fair share of cheap shots thrown at me, imo...but, I am trying to be bigger than that, and I will take your words to heart.
bump....to keep it from getting of topic....
Quote from: Henry Hawk on September 08, 2010, 11:01:15 AM
My first installment is one of such common sense very well told by Thomas Sowell....read it or not, I don't care, but the HAWK does have a reason for his madness.. :razz:
http://townhall.com/columnists/ThomasSowell/2010/09/08/a_non-prediction/page/full/ (http://townhall.com/columnists/ThomasSowell/2010/09/08/a_non-prediction/page/full/)
A Non-Prediction by
Thomas Sowell (http://theunknownzone.us/columnists/ThomasSowell/)
When people learn that you are an economist, they often want you to predict which way the economy is going. There seem to be more than the usual number of calls for such predictions lately. But an economist should be more aware than others are of how hazardous such predictions can be.
One reason is that what happens in the economy is affected by what politicians do in Washington-- and who can predict what politicians will do?
However, let me go out on a limb, and try to predict what politicians will not do.
What would probably get the economy recovering fastest and most completely would be for the President of the United States and Congressional leaders to shut up and stop meddling with the economy. But it is virtually impossible that they will do that.
Think about telling all the millions of people who have lost their jobs, their homes or their businesses: "I really messed you up but, hey, nobody's perfect. So I'm going to leave things alone now." In fact, that would be hard even to tell yourself.
If the stimulus isn't working, the true believers have to believe that it is only because it hasn't been tried long enough, or with enough money being spent.
There are always calls for the government to "do something" when things are going bad. Those who make such calls have almost never bothered to check out what actually happens when the government does something, as compared to what happens when the government does nothing.
It is not just free market economists who think the government can make a mess bigger with its interventions. It was none other than Karl Marx who wrote to his colleague Engels that "crackbrained meddling by the authorities" can "aggravate an existing crisis."
The history of the United States is full of evidence on the negative effects of government intervention. For the first 150 years of this country's existence, the federal government did not think it was its business to intervene when the economy turned down.
All of those downturns ended faster than the first downturn where the federal government intervened big time-- the Great Depression of the 1930s.
There are two conflicting assumptions about what happened during the Great Depression. The most popular assumption, especially among politicians, is that the market failed and the government had to intervene to save the economy.
Another assumption is that the market went down and was on its way back up when federal intervention sent it down again and led to massive unemployment. If you don't let facts get in the way, you can just pick whichever assumption you like-- and the first assumption wins that popularity contest, hands down.
But, if you look at the facts, they go like this: Unemployment never hit double digits in any of the 12 months following the big stock market crash of 1929 that is often blamed for the massive unemployment of the 1930s. Unemployment peaked at 9 percent, two months after the October 1929 crash, and then began drifting downward.
Unemployment was down to 6.3 percent by June 1930, when the first big federal intervention occurred. Within six months, the downward trend in unemployment reversed and hit double digits for the first time in December 1930.
What were politicians to do? Say "We messed up"? Or keep trying one huge intervention after another? The record shows what they did: President Hoover's interventions were followed by President Roosevelt's bigger interventions-- and unemployment remained in double digits in every month for the entire remainder of the decade.
There is another set of facts: The record that was set in 1929 for the biggest stock market decline in one day was broken in 1987. But Ronald Reagan did nothing-- and the media clobbered him for it.
Then the economy rebounded and there were 20 years of sustained economic growth with low inflation and low unemployment.
Can you imagine Barack Obama doing another Ronald Reagan? I certainly wouldn't predict that.
How 'bout a few hard figures?
When Reagan took office the unemployment rate stood at 7.20%. Under his guidance, it held steady until August of '81, when he got the Economic Recovery Tax Act passed. The unemployment rate then rose all the way up to 10.80%, before it started dropping, bottoming out at 5.30% in December 1988. When Clinton took office, the rate stood at 7.30% (we had George the First in there for four years, remember?). It fell steadily until the rate stood at 3.90% in December of 2000.
Now I'm not going to say "Lookee here, the democrat did better than the republican." I am going to say "It took it took three full years before Reagan's approach got the unemployment rate back to where it was when he took office."
And yet, you want to crucify this president after a mere 18 months of trying.
http://www.miseryindex.us/URbymonth.asp
Lolly, for me it comes down to what I see as common sense..
I know for Reagan it took 17 months for his programs to show it's effect on the economy....but HIS plan involved CUTTING taxes to spur economic growth...outside of Military, his planned involved reducing government spending, He was able to restore consumer confidence, all of this with a dem controlled house and senate....He believed that...."Government is not the solution....It is the problem."
Obama's is now facing his 19th month AFTER spending trillions of dollars, and his plan is to increase federal income taxes to pay for this spending, consumer confidence is at an all time low, and the economy is looking as if it is on the verge of taking another dive, his stimulus HAS failed....unemployment has went UP, after he was sure it would go down AFTER his stimulus plan....all of this WITH a dem controlled house and senate....and he thinks the opposite that Government IS the solution....
Quote from: Henry Hawk on September 09, 2010, 09:09:46 AM
Lolly, for me it comes down to what I see as common sense..
I know for Reagan it took 17 months for his programs to show it's effect on the economy....but HIS plan involved CUTTING taxes to spur economic growth...outside of Military, his planned involved reducing government spending, He was able to restore consumer confidence, all of this with a dem controlled house and senate....He believed that...."Government is not the solution....It is the problem."
Obama's is now facing his 19th month AFTER spending trillions of dollars, and his plan is to increase federal income taxes to pay for this spending, consumer confidence is at an all time low, and the economy is looking as if it is on the verge of taking another dive, his stimulus HAS failed....unemployment has went UP, after he was sure it would go down AFTER his stimulus plan....all of this WITH a dem controlled house and senate....and he thinks the opposite that Government IS the solution....
I sure would trust the government of the people, more than than the Super Rich Predatory Capitalist who has stole this country blind and put us in the shape were in. The Republican Party.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on September 09, 2010, 09:09:46 AM
Lolly, for me it comes down to what I see as common sense..
I know for Reagan it took 17 months for his programs to show it's effect on the economy...
What's this "17 months" nonsense? It took THREE FULL YEARS. In August 1981 (when the Economic Recovery Act passed) the unemployment rate stood at 7.40%. It immediately started climbing, hitting 10.80% in November of 1982 (that's one year and 3 months from the passage of the act.) At that point it started to decline, but remained above 10% until July 1983. That's two years from passage of the act now, and unemployment is still above 10%. It remained over 7% until October 1986, when the Tax Reform Act of 1986 (the one you don't like much) was passed. In summer of 1984 it was hovering around 7.40% again -- which was where it stood when Reagan took office in January 1981. So from August 81 (when the first act passed) to August of 84 (that's THREE YEARS) the unemployment rate soared, and then returned to it's beginning point. To put it plainly, the August '81 Act made things dramatically worse, and then returned them to merely bad.
Now you tell me where you get 17 months.
PH, leave me alone. I am convinced I can get Henry to understand simple arithmetic it I hammer away at him long enough. However, getting him to grant the current POTUS the same grace period he gave his hero is probably beyond my powers of persuasion. But I am
damned! if I will let him claim it was only half as long.
It's your headache, not mine!
Quote from: LOsborne on September 09, 2010, 07:10:03 PM
What's this "17 months" nonsense? It took THREE FULL YEARS. In August 1981 (when the Economic Recovery Act passed) the unemployment rate stood at 7.40%. It immediately started climbing, hitting 10.80% in November of 1982 (that's one year and 3 months from the passage of the act.) At that point it started to decline, but remained above 10% until July 1983. That's two years from passage of the act now, and unemployment is still above 10%. It remained over 7% until October 1986, when the Tax Reform Act of 1986 (the one you don't like much) was passed. In summer of 1984 it was hovering around 7.40% again -- which was where it stood when Reagan took office in January 1981. So from August 81 (when the first act passed) to August of 84 (that's THREE YEARS) the unemployment rate soared, and then returned to it's beginning point. To put it plainly, the August '81 Act made things dramatically worse, and then returned them to merely bad.
Now you tell me where you get 17 months.
PH, leave me alone. I am convinced I can get Henry to understand simple arithmetic it I hammer away at him long enough. However, getting him to grant the current POTUS the same grace period he gave his hero is probably beyond my powers of persuasion. But I am damned! if I will let him claim it was only half as long.
Lolly you're going to have to get your statements to come in at the same time as Henry gets his Republican talking point every morning. It's Henry's morning brain washing, where do you think he comes up with all the crap he comes up with.
Quote from: The Troll on September 09, 2010, 08:58:01 PM
Lolly you're going to have to get your statements to come in at the same time as Henry gets his Republican talking point every morning. It's Henry's morning brain washing, where do you think he comes up with all the crap he comes up with.
No can do. I work for a living. No time to play on the computer between 7:30 and 5:30 weekdays.
You're cypherin' with someone who thinks the earth is only about 3000 years old.
Ahhhh.... I see. That certainly explains the time compression.
Quote from: LOsborne on September 09, 2010, 07:10:03 PM
Now you tell me where you get 17 months.
PH, leave me alone. I am convinced I can get Henry to understand simple arithmetic it I hammer away at him long enough. However, getting him to grant the current POTUS the same grace period he gave his hero is probably beyond my powers of persuasion. But I am damned! if I will let him claim it was only half as long.
Chill Lolly, from the time Congress passed his tax cuts, in August 1981, until the recession he inherited finally ended in January 1983....that was 17 months
Obama passed his stimulus in Feb of 09.....he is into his 19th month....show me how my simple arithmatic is wrong...how is YOUR cypherin Sandy?
btw, If Reagan had a repub house and senate, to pass HIS bill faster, things would have happend much sooner.
Lolly are you
damned? :spooked: ;D
The recession ended that month...Inflation fell from 10.3% in 1981 to 3.2% in 1983...unemployment gradually improved and it began to fall from a high of 10.8% in December 1982 and went down continually
Lolly the point I am getting at is..........Obama is doing the opposite of what Reagan did....at least after 17 months of Reagans, there was signs of economic improvments....after 19 months of Obama's plan, there is NO optimism but signs of further economic hardships....he has spent trillions and and wants to spend even MORE....the gov is NOT the solution to the problem...they ARE the problem.
put the money back into the hands of the people of America and let THEM fix this problem.
Hopeless. Henry can't fight the numbers on unemployment, so he suddenly decides to change the topic to the "economy." Straw Man. Nearly as good as the ones me tosses around.
Like mama always said, "You can lead a horticulture, but you can't make her think."