Dubya Bush

[pkt]

Originally posted by Inquartata
Zeidolon, you may not be an economist, but you seem to be able to think clearly, at least.

I AM an economist, at least by schooling, and you are spot on.

I often think that every high school student ought to get a macroecon course or two---and not the "how to balance your checkbook" stuff that passes for econ these days, either. It would make for much better citizens, if nothing else. And better thinkers, as well, I daresay.

But then, I may not be objective on this one...

In4,
I'm not an economist either. In fact I barely passed my university required 3rd year Econ course for business school. When one had a prof whose accent was so thick and his writing on the blackboard so indecipherable that when he passed out handouts that one could hear a collective sign of relief, that is till one realised that his handouts are in his hand!!!! then one hear a collective sigh of dismay and the collective thought of "I'm outta here!"

But what turned things around for me was a 4th year Commerce course with the objective of making the students "EDUCATED" persons who understand what the newspaper economics news mean.

As a result I love the concepts of economics, and glad to understand the workings of the economy.

But alas, when I see the econometrics models I get a splitting headache!!! I enrolled in a 4th year econometrics class once. The class was full for the 1st class with Commerce type. You've never seen the drop out rate higher than this course. I think there was only a handful of students for the 2nd class so I heard.


Therefore I agree with your sentiments that every highschool student should have a grounding in economics, personal finance along with philosophy as compulsory courses.

Originally posted by Inquartata
MHS: ...

Also, face it, appearances count in our shallow media-dominated society, and neither Gephardt nor Kerry are very prepossessing to look at, let alone Braun or Sharpton. I like Lieberman myself, but I think there's still a subterranean reservoir of antisemitism around which make his election doubtful.

Hear, hear on both counts.
And the black people are free!

PK

[MHS Fencer]

As an FYI, I'm now a naive college freshman, but I'd like to think that I've kept myself up to speed on the world around me, much moreso than my peer group (I figure that I should qualify the origin of my remarks).

I wholeheartedly agree that macroeconomics courses should be mandatory so that people can better understand the stances that the US takes regarding trade. Having taken a full year of macro, I better understand the complexities of trade and the huge benefit of it, but there's still the danger of pulling the rug out from this country by sending the rest of our manufacturing jobs elsewhere. I just finished watching a rebroadcast of the Democratic debate, and it's amusing to hear Kucinich speak against NAFTA and the WTO (neither of which I am a big fan of, but more for the details such as the granting of supernational authority to abritration councils to resolve trade disputes. The problem is that they are without any appeal options, and they are flawed, as has been evidenced by the ruling that the manufacturer of the gasoline additive MBTE was owed damaged by California for banning it, and thus blocking free trade - we need fair trade before we can achieve free trade...sorry for the mini rant). Dean and Kerry both talked about reforming NAFTA and the WTO, with Kerry criticizing Kucinich's idealism.

I was pleased by the overall quality of the presidential debate, and, while none of them are angels (or even Abraham Lincolns) they are an intelligent group (note: Sharpton was unable to attend due to poor weather preventing his travel). It's clear to me, though, that Dean and Kerry are going to be vying for the nomination just from watching tonight (although, I'm simply echoing my previous post right now).

What sets them apart is that they are intelligent, pragmatic men. This means that rather than adopting the idealism of Kucinich, they have a logical take on events with a leftish slant. Of course, this sort of pragmatism leads people to think of their politics as being further right than they actually may be - as an avowed leftist, (then again, I'm 18, and if you're not a liberal at 18 you have no heart...) it pains me to think of myself moderating my stance in order to achieve a practical end, but these two men are doing just that, even though Dean has portrayed himself as the candidate of the true left. In reality, it seems like Dean's ideals lie with the left, but his actions seem to be otherwise because he has sacrified idealism to obtain results, which are what this country needs. Either Dean or Kerry will achieve results for this country (which will not create the Dean Depression, as our hawkish conservative friend, Sen. Lieberman, seemed to think).

So, getting back to my point, which was my point in my first post, either Dean or Kerry is a viable candidate, but it'll most likely be Dean, and he's got a good chance of knocking Bush off... It's the economy, stupid.

Oh, and as per a lingering anti-semitism, I think that that may exist, but Lieberman is unelectable because he's more confused than a straight boy in heals, lipstick and his mama's bra - he needs to realize he's not a Democrat.

If Wesley Clark were to join in the race it would be interesting, being that he brings the military background. What people forget about him is that as the Supreme Allied Commander of Nato (or something to that effect), he screwed up the war in Kosovo. Of course, we'll overlook that because that's what we do in this country - it's about what people think, and why they think happened, rather than being about what actually did take place. Word on the street, however, is the Clark is angling for the VP nomination, which would strengthen Dean's ticket tremendously (give him the military credit that a former general brings with him, that Kerry has because of his tour in Vietnam). A Dean/Clark ticket or Kerry/Clark (although, I'm not sure how receptive Kerry's campaign would be to Clark - maybe very, maybe not at all - I just don't know) would be strong and, like I said before, unless we launch another military invasion (Iran anybody?) to distract the voting public, Bush is going to have problems.

If anybody here has read Al Franken's most recent book, and what Franken says about the Bush team's knowledge of September 11th is true, and if that gets any main stream coverage, Bush is a sitting, lame duck. Sigh, but I guess I'm just a hopelessly optimistic leftist who believe that this is the year for the Cubs.

Ian,

[Inquartata]

If it is indeed "the economy" Bush may sail into a second term with ease. The reports are beginning to look that way:

http://biz.yahoo.com/opt/030904/b219...cdf9eba_1.html

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...m/economy_dc_7

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...omic_outlook_2

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...09030303000513

And no, should a Democrat come to power I do not expect a "depression" any more than I did when a Republican was elected. It bears repeating that the ability of Presidents to manipulate something as enormous, as complex, and as willful ( it seems ) as the American economy is trifling at best. I expect the economy to continue on its merry cyclical way, and the eventual electee will get either the blame or the credit for whatever it does, because politicians and their PR machines are cunning and people are gullible...


As it now stands, with a Republican Congress, I'll probably vote for a Democrat, just on the balance-of-power angle.

P.S. "Fair trade" is a euphemism for interference in the markets by governments and transnational quasigovernments in order to achieve noneconomic goals. Such interferences have never had particularly salubrious outcomes in the past and I see little cause to expect anything different in the future. Moreover, "fair" is as mythical a creature as "free"...

[MHS Fencer]

Haha, I appreciate the comment on fair vs. free trade, and your right in saying that it's probably not going to happen, but it is a means to the end of free trade, rather than just adopting a free trade that clearly isn't free, and that undermines the manufacturing base of the country.

As per your assertion that a president cannot influence the economy, while he may not do so directly, his policies have huge repercussions on the economy. Increased defense spending leads to more jobs w/ Boeing (fewer firings, that is) and what better reason for more defense spending than sending our troops abroad. Other congressional spending has a greater impact though - the creation of the superhighway system led to an economic boom, as did the spending that turned the military's Arpanet into the Internet. These are things that the president can influence, and I'd hardly term them trifling.

I would say, however, that Alan Greenspan has a far more direct impact on the economy, although he cannot create recessions, he can certainly help to mitigate them. So that would be in accordance with what you said. Greenspan, however, reacts to legislation and spending passed by the government, as well as economic indicators, so he's dependent on the President and Congress (whose respective sway isn't defined but depends more on one's POV).

As per the economy, (oops, 2nd time using "as per" to begin a paragraph) while the numbers are indicating an increasing growth trend, I find the jobless claims worrisome - a rising tide lifts all yachts, but i guess not the fishing boats.

Okay, I'm off to college now, so I'm afraid this may very well be my last post for a while.
-Ian

[Inquartata]

Originally posted by MHS Fencer

As per your assertion that a president cannot influence the economy, while he may not do so directly, his policies have huge repercussions on the economy.

I think this is more apparent than real. ( When it comes to things like governments and economies, it should probably be an established maxim that whenever you think you have noticed an effect that seems to be clear and unmistakeable, an obvious linkage or an inevitable outcome of a given action, you are almost certainly missing something... ).

After all, toss a stone into a lake and it certaunly LOOKS as though it has had a dramatic effect. But all it really amounts to is a few showy and short-lived ripples, which leave the great volume of water below unaffected.

I would say, however, that Alan Greenspan has a far more direct impact on the economy, although he cannot create recessions, he can certainly help to mitigate them.

Well---he COULD create them, too. After all, the severity of the recession which became the Great Depression early in the last century has been laid largely at the feet of the actions of the Fed of the time. And should Greenspan get converted to radical Islam or go mad in some other fashion tomorrow, all he'd need to do is, say, raise the reserve requirement a few points to make widespread havoc. Which is why I think of the President of the US as the SECOND most powerful man in the world...

Greenspan, however, reacts to legislation and spending passed by the government, as well as economic indicators, so he's dependent on the President and Congress

Inasmuch as he adopts policies designed to counteract things the President and Legislature do as often as not, I'm not sure this makes him dependent on them, really. Apart from being appointed by the POTUS in the first place, that is.

I find the jobless claims worrisome - a rising tide lifts all yachts, but i guess not the fishing boats.

There's a columnist who writes for my local newspaper who is essentially a one-issue pundit. His obsession is immigration, particularly immigration from Latin America---mostly he seems to be in constant search of ways to persuade readers that the illegal ones ought not to be called illegal but rather "undocumented", and that they ought to be granted legal status and welcomed with open arms, etc. His column yesterday presented the paradoxical idea that immigrants are vital to the US economy because the US is actually suffering from a large and growing labor shortage which can only be supplied from Mexico and points south. Meanwhile in the same column he grouses about the "relatively high unemployment rate ". I'm not sure exactly which side he's arguing---probably both, if they'll help advance a left agenda...

Anyway, buried in one of those links I posted above is the reason why employment is lagging the rest of the economy: largish gains in productivity which has made profitability without hiring possible. But that effect will go only so far. Eventually, expansion will require more hiring. Not that that's any great comfort to
job-seekers looking NOW, of course. But maybe by Election Day...