Obama Approval Ratings Dip in New Poll

[mawilson 2,133]

A fact that support Steve is the fact that the Chinese stimulus, relative to their economy, was way bigger than what Obama or anyone in Europe has tried. And theirs is the first economy to return to robust growth.

China's "robust growth" is complete bollocks though - inventory build-up (counting an unwanted

buildup of commodities as "growth") and paying one group of guys to dig up holes and another

group of guys to fill them up - both jobs contribute to the GDP yet accomplish absolutely nothing.

Think about it - where would this massive "growth" come from if no-one is buying their ####### -

exports are down 20-30% year-on-year.

The Communist Party set the growth target of 8%, and that's what you'll get.

[Heracles 417]

Wall street's growth was no different. Artificial manipulation of numbers in-order to promote growth, that was built on a house of cards. Once again, wall street has managed to wipe out Americans wealth.

As China's middle class increase in numbers, they will self consume what they make. Investing in a country is by no means a waste of money. China is using their billions to build their infrastructure and improve their cities. I know quite a few people who are working on projects over there.

Edited July 21, 2009 by haza

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

As China's middle class increase in numbers, they will self consume

cannibalism can not be tolerated in the 21st century. We will just have to invade them to save them from self consumption.

[mawilson 2,133]

As China's middle class increase in numbers, they will self consume what they make. Investing in a country is by no means a waste of money. China is using their billions to build their infrastructure and improve their cities. I know quite a few people who are working on projects over there.

No doubt - I'm just questioning their miraculous insta-recovery.

[Heracles 417]

As China's middle class increase in numbers, they will self consume what they make. Investing in a country is by no means a waste of money. China is using their billions to build their infrastructure and improve their cities. I know quite a few people who are working on projects over there.

No doubt - I'm just questioning their miraculous insta-recovery.

They're definitely artificially pumping $$$ into the economy. Whereas, we have repubs here who see zero gain in doing so ourselves. Apparently tax cuts for the rich and companies will generate jobs.

I do see what you're saying though. This could be a strategy by the Chinese government to show they are strong, unlike the US. After all, communist governments renowned for pulling ####### like that.

Edited July 21, 2009 by haza

[The_Dude 1,142]

As China's middle class increase in numbers, they will self consume what they make. Investing in a country is by no means a waste of money. China is using their billions to build their infrastructure and improve their cities. I know quite a few people who are working on projects over there.

No doubt - I'm just questioning their miraculous insta-recovery.

They're definitely artificially pumping $$$ into the economy. Whereas, we have repubs here who see zero gain in doing so ourselves. Apparently tax cuts for the rich and companies will generate jobs.

I do see what you're saying though. This could be a strategy by the Chinese government to show they are strong, unlike the US. After all, communist governments renowned for pulling ####### like that.

They are also one of the main proponants for dumping the U.S. dollar as the global standard for Oil.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

A fact that support Steve is the fact that the Chinese stimulus, relative to their economy, was way bigger than what Obama or anyone in Europe has tried. And theirs is the first economy to return to robust growth.

China's "robust growth" is complete bollocks though - inventory build-up (counting an unwanted

buildup of commodities as "growth") and paying one group of guys to dig up holes and another

group of guys to fill them up - both jobs contribute to the GDP yet accomplish absolutely nothing.

Think about it - where would this massive "growth" come from if no-one is buying their ####### -

exports are down 20-30% year-on-year.

The Communist Party set the growth target of 8%, and that's what you'll get.

True that, true that. It's how it works.

[mRx 16]

I am still waiting on Matt to show me an example of his approach and its success in the real world, as the top 20 GDP per capita nations seem to show otherwise. China's GDP is actually growing at 7.8% and they are all about government involvement.

Public / Private cooperation is exactly the way to go. Signs of that are in every developed country. To the contrary, the end result of allowing companies to do what they want is everywhere in America. Run down cities and broken dreams. For example, allowing private industry such as oil companies and auto companies (individuals) to buy up and rip out rail from various cities in the 60's, so they they earned a profit at the expense of everyone else. Now America is left with severely inadequate public transport options.

A good example would have to be from 1921-1927. Secretary Andrew Mellon maintained very low taxation during this period. The Federal Funds rate was nearly in line with the supply/demand market for money. State-coerced regulation was low, and investment was high. I don't have the figures, but wages and standards of living rose significantly.

Don't even begin to try to pull a "look where that led us"; It wasn't until 1927 when the Federal Funds rate was lowered, and inflation commenced. This was so Ben Strong could help his buddy over at the Bank of England with their gold-drain problem.

The period of 1921-1927 was a period of great prosperity, and surprisingly (to you), it was provided by the market, not the government.

Matt, you have good points, however, this is not 1927. I just don't understand why you and libertarians continue to dismiss (overlook) the huge success of other countries overseas and their approaches towards government and industry that got them there; aka (private/public partnerships) . I just read another article by the World bank and IMF stating how Australia will come out ahead of this crisis and has been affected the least by the gloom; with Canada not that far behind. How do you think they managed this? It certainly wasn't from zero government intervention. Quite the opposite. Huge government investments are keeping their economies afloat. Huge government investments are allowing China to grow at 7.8% this year while we are in the negative.

I'm a die hard capitalist myself and argued for it since day one. However, the Australian and Canadian economies have proven me wrong. After comparing the status quo here I can without a doubt say they are doing better. I just spoke to my real estate agent over there and the value of my houses actually increased (again) this second half.

Haza,

You asked for an empirical example of how the unhindered market creates prosperity, and I delivered.

You're assumption that economic progression is the result of government intervention is baseless. It's a logical fallacy to mix up the causation of prosperity and coorelation of government presence.

If government involvement creates prosperity, then where is the USSR on the top 20 GDP per capita? With that antecedent in mind, suggesting that some level of government partership is economically better than none goes against all economic logic and reason.

[mRx 16]

The government works together through the power of a fist. That's hardly what I would consider working together.

Your statement above is a broad generalization. You and I both know that it is not an absolute truth. As long you convince yourself that government by design is 'evil', you can't see the truth that government is neither inherently good nor inherently evil. It is equally capable of doing great things and terrible things. I wish you could find some middle ground.

Steven, if the government could somehow internalize externalities and provide a product at a higher quality and lower cost than a competitive market, then I may seek some middle ground. But, such an entity is impossible.

Is it ironic to anyone that every problem a government tries to tackle just mucks the problem up worse?

- The War on Drugs was promised to get drugs off the streets, and out of our children's hands. The WoD has created a thriving market for drugs where a middle school child can sling drugs and make $1,000's a week. The WoD has also created unnecessary death, suffering and incarceration.

- The War on Terror has given us... you guessed it--More terrorists!

It's not that I think that government is inherently evil and corrupt--But I just think they're not suited for the job.

As much as I'd love my cat to make me breakfast, I understand that no amount of money, training, or Food Network viewing will change the fact that Kitteh isn't suited for the job.

[mawilson 2,133]

You asked for an empirical example of how the unhindered market creates prosperity, and I delivered.

How would the unhindered market address the problem of insuring people with pre-existing conditions

or old/sick people?

No insurance company would insure these people at a reasonable cost (as they are more likely to be

high risk), absent some sort of a government regulation mandating it.

[mRx 16]

You asked for an empirical example of how the unhindered market creates prosperity, and I delivered.

How would the unhindered market address the problem of insuring people with pre-existing conditions

or old/sick people?

No insurance company would insure these people at a reasonable cost (as they are more likely to be

high risk), absent some sort of a government regulation mandating it.

The market would address the problem. Bear in mind though, that a government mandate only spreads the costs of insuring high-risk over the general populace. A market solution would internalize the externalities.

I figure that if the unhindered market were allowed to work the HC market, the prices for everyone would drop. But that would require breaking up the government-imposed cartel, and no salaried bureaucrat in their right mind wants to do that.

[mawilson 2,133]

You asked for an empirical example of how the unhindered market creates prosperity, and I delivered.

How would the unhindered market address the problem of insuring people with pre-existing conditions

or old/sick people?

No insurance company would insure these people at a reasonable cost (as they are more likely to be

high risk), absent some sort of a government regulation mandating it.

The market would address the problem. Bear in mind though, that a government mandate only spreads the costs of insuring high-risk over the general populace. A market solution would internalize the externalities.

I figure that if the unhindered market were allowed to work the HC market, the prices for everyone would drop. But that would require breaking up the government-imposed cartel, and no salaried bureaucrat in their right mind wants to do that.

Sure, I'll give you that - the prices would be lower. Still, if I'm a profit-driven insurance provider,

why would I want to insure a high-risk patient, except for an exorbitant premium? What's in it for me?

[Peikko 1,575]

A pure free market is good for the median consumer. If you happen to be an consumer who doesn't fit the middle ground, then you're basically screwed.

[mRx 16]

What's a median consumer, Cleo?

There's a market for every consumer. If not, then there's unfulfilled demand, and that's worth something to suppliers.

[Peikko 1,575]

What's a median consumer, Cleo?

There's a market for every consumer. If not, then there's unfulfilled demand, and that's worth something to suppliers.

For example in health care. If you have diabetes or asthma, it's easy to diagnose and there's a plethora of drug companies that want your business Kaching, kaching. However, what if you have a difficult to diagnose, rare disease, where's the profit margin? There isn't one, the free market has no incentive at all to do anything about it - you are screwed.

Take electronics, if you produce something that is excellent quality there is no guarentee you will have a market if something cheap with mass appeal comes along. Betamax, vinyl records. There are hundreds of instances where this is true.

There are many unfulfilled demands, in some areas of life, when it's a luxury - too bad but in the lottery that is good health, is too bad acceptable?