Obama Economics: Like FDR?

[Ghost of Jaco]

big word, almost.

Here ya go, a totally unbiased search of websites offering "Basic Economics 101":
http://search.live.com/results.aspx?q=%22basic+economics+101%22&sourceid=Mozilla-search&form=CHROME

And an unbiased dictionary/wiki of economic terminology:
http://www.economypedia.com/

...but then admittedly, i know little about operating a business.

I still welcome your comments, but please don't immediately discount my answers. I do speak from experience.

f you too.  (any dismissive statement like "in the real world" only really means "f you".  it never comes with any substance)

awol, I would never say such a thing to you or anyone else just because we disagree on economic theory and the effects of taxation.
I do tend to respond to people here in the "tone" that they address me, so maybe that's why you think I might say such a thing.
But, no; I would just leave the thread or at least stop responding to your posts long before I would, ever get angry enough to say "f*** you".

What I meant by "in the real world" was simply that: historically, here is what happens under these circumstances.

i've no reason to believe any of this.  especially out of you.

And I've no reason to lie to you about an embarrassing personal business failure. I owned a bar and grill, and I lost my a$$ on the venture. I am still feeling the repercussions emotionally and financially yet today, and I lost the business in 2006. I learned some hard lessons the hard way.

oh, so you think a business will forgo a tax advantage for a needed expansion, and choose to expand when there is little or no tax advantage?

Mmmmm....possibly, if the increase in revenue would more than compensate for the revenue lost to the taxation.
When it will not, then businesses who need to increase capacity will expand in manners that avoid the excessive taxation.
They do things like move jobs out of this country to other countries that are more "tax-friendly" toward business.

[drbob]

Hello folks thanks for the comments.

      I'm not sure you have to do a particular job to be able to make reasonable observations about it.  I've never been in government and I would in no way call my self an expert, but I do think I can make reasonably thoughtful observations about what government does.  Some (emphasis on some) reporters do the same. 

However, I do not want to defend the media.  I have been a critical of it as anyone.  I criticize their values.  Circulation of audience is their prime objective.  Telling us the news objectively comes a distant second. 

[awol]

What I meant by "in the real world" was simply that: historically, here is what happens under these circumstances.

great!  assertion.  let's see your data.

[Palehorse]

Hello folks thanks for the comments.

      I'm not sure you have to do a particular job to be able to make reasonable observations about it.  I've never been in government and I would in no way call my self an expert, but I do think I can make reasonably thoughtful observations about what government does.  Some (emphasis on some) reporters do the same. 

However, I do not want to defend the media.  I have been a critical of it as anyone.  I criticize their values.  Circulation of audience is their prime objective.  Telling us the news objectively comes a distant second. 

Observations are fine, as well as opinions. Even dissention is constructive in the right environment. The media, (the majority IMHO), holds none of these as the motive behind what it puts out there. Predatory comes to mind, but you are correct in saying it is all about the circulation/viewership numbers/ratings. Bottom line, the almighty dollar.

Hypothetically; there is the risk that in continuing with such practices the media opens itself to potential relegation of a status similar to that of the National Enquirer; a fictional rag in which there is no truth to be found. If the new POTUS can manage to demonstrate progression and hold the favor of the nation's majority, the media may soon find itself far removed from the trust and respect of the majority of the American public. (A status they richly deserve right now IMHO).

That being said, I am sure there are a number of honest journalists out there that do their very best to remain objective and report in an honest and constructive manner. I don't know who they are but I have hope that they do indeed exist!  (Last 2 I knew of worked for the Washington Post).

[Ghost of Jaco]

great!  assertion.  let's see your data.

Well, from recent news for example: how about the car makers? Dropping profits meant layoffs, factory closings...it's still going on, actually. Their lack of profits is their justification for needing a bailout. If we don't bail them out, what will happen? They will go bankrupt and out of business, causing thousands more people to lose their jobs (and I'm STILL not in favor of it as a "giveaway").

Also "ripped form the headlines", people all agree that the economy is bad. The unemployment rate is up, almost everyone knows someone who has lost their job. Why would they be losing their jobs? Because the companies they work for no longer profit enough from their labor (I know that sounds cruel, but labor is a commodity with a value that goes up and down just like every other commodity).
So I think my point about low or zero profits means people will be out of work is made quite clear just be reading the newspaper.
If you have an alternate theory I''d be open to hearing it.


Btw, here's an interesting factoid I heard on a financial radio show a few years back: at the turn of the LAST century (1899-1900) there were approximately 200 auto manufacturers in the US. The ones that could not make a profit either closed or were bought up by what became the Big Three (ending when JEEP was bought by Chrysler, imo). Some if not all of the divisions of General Motors (Chevrolet, Buick, Oldsmobile, etc) were once independent auto manufacturers, iirc.

[awol]

bush's tax cuts are still in play.  your data seems to contradict your point.

[Doc]

Observations are fine, as well as opinions. Even dissention is constructive in the right environment. The media, (the majority IMHO), holds none of these as the motive behind what it puts out there. Predatory comes to mind, but you are correct in saying it is all about the circulation/viewership numbers/ratings. Bottom line, the almighty dollar.

Hypothetically; there is the risk that in continuing with such practices the media opens itself to potential relegation of a status similar to that of the National Enquirer; a fictional rag in which there is no truth to be found. If the new POTUS can manage to demonstrate progression and hold the favor of the nation's majority, the media may soon find itself far removed from the trust and respect of the majority of the American public. (A status they richly deserve right now IMHO).

That being said, I am sure there are a number of honest journalists out there that do their very best to remain objective and report in an honest and constructive manner. I don't know who they are but I have hope that they do indeed exist!  (Last 2 I knew of worked for the Washington Post).

It's hard to get a positive message out when every media outlet except for Fox News is out to discredit you.If this election has taught us anything it is that journalistic integrity is the newest in a long list of oxymorons.The media is a bias liberial machine bent on pushing it's owner agenda on us.And the other is that P.T. Barnum was way off when he said that one was born every minute it's more like every second.
God help us all

[Exterminator]

It's hard to get a positive message out when every media outlet except for Fox News is out to discredit you.If this election has taught us anything it is that journalistic integrity is the newest in a long list of oxymorons.The media is a bias liberial machine bent on pushing it's owner agenda on us.And the other is that P.T. Barnum was way off when he said that one was born every minute it's more like every second.God help us all

You mean the corporate owned media?  Liberal?  Yeah, right.  Could it be that the conservatives themselves make it virtually impossible to be presented as anything other than the assclowns they are?

[Ghost of Jaco]

bush's tax cuts are still in play.  your data seems to contradict your point.

There are a lot of factors affecting the current recession. Maybe taxes weren't cut far enough? Maybe a profligate House and Senate spent too much money?

If you don't believe that a loss of profits can cause companies to eliminate jobs, then what do you think does?

[awol]

There are a lot of factors affecting the current recession. Maybe taxes weren't cut far enough? Maybe a profligate House and Senate spent too much money?

If you don't believe that a loss of profits can cause companies to eliminate jobs, then what do you think does?

a loss of profitability.  i believe you are confusing the two.

[followsthewolf]

Hey, Doc.

You think that the ideas that the news media are biased is significant only recently?

Obviously you never read history very carefully, or else the name of William Randolph Hearst might have come to mind.

But, then again, he was ultra conservative, so he wouldn't possibly be biased.

[Ghost of Jaco]

a loss of profitability.  i believe you are confusing the two.

So, you are saying that it's a loss of the profits themselves, necessarily, but the loss of the ability to continue to make a profit?
In other words, it's not that they don't have any money, but that they cannot make any more money?
Hmmm....not sure I can disagree with that. I'll have to think that over. It's a fine distinction, to be sure, but there is a difference.

[Ghost of Jaco]

Hey, Doc.

You think that the ideas that the news media are biased is significant only recently?

Obviously you never read history very carefully, or else the name of William Randolph Hearst might have come to mind.

But, then again, he was ultra conservative, so he wouldn't possibly be biased.

When it comes to biases, news organizations today are rank amateurs when compared to Hearst, and going way back before him, even! The difference I think is that they didn't pretend otherwise like news organizations do today.