Berkeley Off Christina Romer.

Ok, if you're sick of how some of the political discussions turn out on this board, it'd probably be better to turn around at this point. I'm not gonna say anything much tho', I'll let Obama's chief economic adviser say just about all that can be said. As for my seeming profanity in the topic name, she actually is going back to Berkeley.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/01/AR2010090106148.html

She didn't have a clue......Makes you wonder how many other "experts" in the administration are that clueless. This is scary stuff, boys and girls.

One thing that seems pretty clear about economist: NO one REALLY knows what is going on, or how to fix it. This is pretty clear when you have well educated and respected economist essentially recommending almost opposite solutions.

Realistically, I figure the natural trends are generally more powerful then the fixes.

Even now, Romer said, mystery persists. "To this day, economists don't fully understand why firms cut production as much as they did or why they cut labor so much more than they normally would." Her defense was that "almost all analysts were surprised by the violent reaction."

And this from the Chairman of Obam's Council of Economic Advisers.

In reply to carguy123:

It's apparent that Romer is referring to economists that were chosen by the administration, not those that have opposing ideas on how to approach rebuilding the economy.

Firms cut production and labor when they experience reduced consumption and also see a wave of government-induced expenses (taxes and regulation) on a collision course.

There a trillions of dollars sitting idle because no one knows how much of it will have to be used to cover the expected and unexpected operating costs. That money will flow back into the economy only when there is reasonable expectation of ROI.

Ugg... That is disheartening.

"But Romer argued ..... "As the Council of Economic Advisers has documented in a series of reports to Congress, there is widespread agreement that the act is broadly on track," she declared. Further, she argued, "I will never regret trying to put analysis and quantitative estimates behind our policy recommendations.""

The analysis and estimates were wrong. The "stimulus" package was hastily thrown together by a Congress eager to belly-up to the pork barrel and they shoved it down our collective throats.

I hereby nominate Ms. Romer as Queen of DeNyle.

Truth is, they are never going to fix this problem until they stop forcing businesses to lay people off or killing entire industries. I really hope no one there has a clue, otherwise they are killing the economy on purpose.

Our company produces tech products and does R&D for energy fields such as mining and oil, and now we're doing most of our business in Australia and South Africa. Both of their governments are more receptive to these industries than our own.

In fact, this administration has crippled it to the point where most are wondering how much longer they can even stay in business. It's bad people, I mean really bad. If they keep going with their agenda, it's not only going to keep employment numbers high, but hundreds of thousands more will lose their jobs in this industry alone, and energy costs will skyrocket.

If they don't have a clue, it's only because they either don't look at the outcomes of their own actions, or they couldn't care less.

racerdave600 wrote: If they don't have a clue, it's only because they either don't look at the outcomes of their own actions, or they couldn't care less.

Or they want us on our knees so we'll accept a solution to the problem that we wouldn't have 2 years ago. It's called the Overton Window.

Like $2.50 gas doesn't seem nearly so bad once we've had $5.00 a gallon gas.

Conspiracies require a level of organization and control several orders of magnitude beyond what any group in government actually has. Obama couldn't even get his death panel legislation passed.

I like that she's adult enough to admit what she doesn't know and that she was wrong. These are not stupid people and this is not an issue that can be boiled down to an answer beyond "we've been doing everything wrong for a long time and now we're paying the price." The system is so berkeleyed up you'll never be able to point to something and say "if we fix that, we're golden!"

Off to buy some gold, ammo and beans.

paanta wrote: I like that she's adult enough to admit what she doesn't know and that she was wrong. These are not stupid people and this is not an issue that can be boiled down to an answer beyond "we've been doing everything wrong for a long time and now we're paying the price." The system is so berkeleyed up you'll never be able to point to something and say "if we fix that, we're golden!"

She never conceded that she was wrong on policy choice or that the "stimulus" package was poorly conceived and ignored the private sector - it's the private sector which funds government.

Never were truer words spoken Oldsaw, there would be no government without small business.

How can the government take an income (sic) of $100 and then spend $200, if we did that we would go to jail, especially if it was some else's $200

aussiesmg wrote: Never were truer words spoken Oldsaw, there would be no government without small business. How can the government take an income (sic) of $100 and then spend $200, if we did that we would go to jail, especially if it was some else's $200

So, quick question, where were your posts for the previous 8 years when they did the same thing???? Just curious.

alfadriver wrote:

aussiesmg wrote: Never were truer words spoken Oldsaw, there would be no government without small business. How can the government take an income (sic) of $100 and then spend $200, if we did that we would go to jail, especially if it was some else's $200

So, quick question, where were your posts for the previous 8 years when they did the same thing???? Just curious.

I was bitching about it then too.

DILYSI Dave wrote:

alfadriver wrote:

aussiesmg wrote: Never were truer words spoken Oldsaw, there would be no government without small business. How can the government take an income (sic) of $100 and then spend $200, if we did that we would go to jail, especially if it was some else's $200

So, quick question, where were your posts for the previous 8 years when they did the same thing???? Just curious.

I was bitching about it then too.

Me too.

The good news is that I doubt this administration will get voted in again. The bad news is that if its not this one, it will probably be a Republican one. I think that everybody needs to tell the Repubs and the Dems to berkeley off and start voting third parties.

alfadriver wrote: So, quick question, where were your posts for the previous 8 years when they did the same thing???? Just curious.

I believed the MMA was a prescription for failure and unsustainable costs - in 2003. What was your stance on the issue 8 years ago?

Too few people (i.e., voters) were then engaged enough to voice their concerns and affect the legislation - now they are.

Edit:

BTW, the "Off Topic" board archives date back to 2006. Please list all your posts prior to that date.

alfadriver wrote: So, quick question, where were your posts for the previous 30 years when they did the same thing???? Just curious.

Fixed that for ya.

Bowing out of the political discussion. My opinions don't necessarily reflect reality and such...

Tom Heath wrote: My opinions don't necessarily reflect reality and such...

The same can be said for economic policies, too!

Well, I gotta tell ya. I’ve been thinking about this stuff a lot and trying to put my partisan bent aside. Certainly a gross oversimplification, but you get the idea.

First, we elected a guy who said he would cut taxes. It was supposed to make the economy stronger. He did cut taxes! Hurrah! That was nice. But he also wrote a sunset into the cuts knowing that we didn’t really have the money to pay for them. We borrowed it from China. Okay, well, too good to last. I get that.

But then we had the wars. Needed or not, that’s not the point here. We had them and they cost a lot. We borrowed more money from China. Hum. Not sure if this is a good idea anymore.

Sure enough, things go kinda bad. Economy falls apart. GM goes under. Banks stop loaning money. People lose their houses. People lose their jobs. Everyone’s 401k went to E36 M3. Now I know things are bad. Everyone says “well, that’s about enough of that” so they vote for a new guy from another party.

So what does he do? He lowers taxes- borrows the money from, you guessed it, China. Then he does the Stimulus. We’re going to spend our way out of this with… more money from China. Health care? Well, CBO says it will save money in the long run, but sure looks like it’s going to cost something at least up front. Wow, more money from China? This is getting pretty deep!

Now I hear everyone on TV saying “we can’t get rid of the Bush tax cuts, it’ll be bad for the economy”. So when the economy was good we needed to cut taxes and now that it’s bad we need to cut taxes. Or they tell us we’re in so much debt, so we need to spend more. Don’t know about you guys, but that’s not how I do it at my house.

Call me crazy, but I think we need to raise taxes and cut spending. Nobody seems to be running on that platform, so not sure what that means. They talk like it’s obvious that cutting taxes will somehow magically give us more revenue. I’m pretty sure we tried that and it didn’t work. Others tell us we need a “second stimulus” because, obviously, spending more money will somehow magically give us more revenue. I’m pretty sure we tried that and it didn’t work. How ‘bout we try tightening our belts, paying the bills and see if that somehow magically makes things better?

Here’s a thought for you. Look at the budget- I think they have it on Wikipedia. If you add up all the lines associated with Social Security, the Military, Medicade and Medicare you get 75% of the budget. So why don’t any of the political ads on TV talk about those things? We hear a lot about a bunch of other stuff, but if you add it all up, what does it work out to as a percentage of the budget. Don’t know about you guys, but I think we need to take some big whacks at stuff. If you’re talking about stuff that adds up to less than one percent of the budget, I don’t really want to hear you making a big deal about it.

This is what I see- a lot of guys working really, really hard to tell me why it’s someone else’s fault. I’m pretty tired of that. I want to hear some solutions. What’s a way forward? How will you get us out of this? And please, not the same tired ideas that got us into this mess. More spending and lower taxes? No thank you.

Why can't government stick to governing(posturing and golf junkets) and leave business to itself? Business can and will, make its own adjustments without the "help"(interference)of the government. So will the economy. And please trolls, can we keep the conversation on subject?

fast_eddie_72 wrote: First, we elected a guy who said he would cut taxes. It was supposed to make the economy stronger. He did cut taxes! Hurrah! That was nice. But he also wrote a sunset into the cuts knowing that we didn’t really have the money to pay for them. More spending and lower taxes? No thank you.

The "sunset" restriction was a compromise with the Dems in order to pass the legislation - both parties are to blame.

Tax revenues increased to record levels, but so did federal spending - both parties are to blame.

The self-inflicted housing bubble was recognized as a real threat to the economy - one party blocked attempts to address the problem.

One party now wants to increase spending and increase taxes while the other party staunches opposes that policy - both parties are to blame.

More spending - He11 NO! When was the last time you successfully spent more money (you didn't have) to avoid financial ruin?

Less taxes - He11 YES! Increase tax revenue and apply it towards debt, not more governmental largess. Encourage businesses to invest in the economy and generate income so they can pay taxes on the money they're are making in a free-market.

Capitalists will spend money to make money but they will sit on it if they can't.

fast_eddie_72 wrote: Well, I gotta tell ya. I’ve been thinking about this stuff a lot and trying to put my partisan bent aside. Certainly a gross oversimplification, but you get the idea. First, we elected a guy who said he would cut taxes. It was supposed to make the economy stronger. He did cut taxes! Hurrah! That was nice. But he also wrote a sunset into the cuts knowing that we didn’t really have the money to pay for them. We borrowed it from China. Okay, well, too good to last. I get that. But then we had the wars. Needed or not, that’s not the point here. We had them and they cost a lot. We borrowed more money from China. Hum. Not sure if this is a good idea anymore. Sure enough, things go kinda bad. Economy falls apart. GM goes under. Banks stop loaning money. People lose their houses. People lose their jobs. Everyone’s 401k went to E36 M3. Now I know things are bad. Everyone says “well, that’s about enough of that” so they vote for a new guy from another party. So what does he do? He lowers taxes- borrows the money from, you guessed it, China. Then he does the Stimulus. We’re going to spend our way out of this with… more money from China. Health care? Well, CBO says it will save money in the long run, but sure looks like it’s going to cost something at least up front. Wow, more money from China? This is getting pretty deep! Now I hear everyone on TV saying “we can’t get rid of the Bush tax cuts, it’ll be bad for the economy”. So when the economy was good we needed to cut taxes and now that it’s bad we need to cut taxes. Or they tell us we’re in so much debt, so we need to spend more. Don’t know about you guys, but that’s not how I do it at my house. Call me crazy, but I think we need to raise taxes and cut spending. Nobody seems to be running on that platform, so not sure what that means. They talk like it’s obvious that cutting taxes will somehow magically give us more revenue. I’m pretty sure we tried that and it didn’t work. Others tell us we need a “second stimulus” because, obviously, spending more money will somehow magically give us more revenue. I’m pretty sure we tried that and it didn’t work. How ‘bout we try tightening our belts, paying the bills and see if that somehow magically makes things better? Here’s a thought for you. Look at the budget- I think they have it on Wikipedia. If you add up all the lines associated with Social Security, the Military, Medicade and Medicare you get 75% of the budget. So why don’t any of the political ads on TV talk about those things? We hear a lot about a bunch of other stuff, but if you add it all up, what does it work out to as a percentage of the budget. Don’t know about you guys, but I think we need to take some big whacks at stuff. If you’re talking about stuff that adds up to less than one percent of the budget, I don’t really want to hear you making a big deal about it. This is what I see- a lot of guys working really, really hard to tell me why it’s someone else’s fault. I’m pretty tired of that. I want to hear some solutions. What’s a way forward? How will you get us out of this? And please, not the same tired ideas that got us into this mess. More spending and lower taxes? No thank you.

Rather than raise taxes and cut spending, I'd go for cut taxes and cut spending a LOT more. Same effect of getting the house in order, but also leaves money in the private sector where it can grow the economy.

Currently, if a Dept is scheduled to get a 5% bump and they only get a 3% bump, they consider that a spending cut. berkeley that. Day 1. Every department is to submit to me within 60 days a budget that is 15% lower than the current. If you can't do it, I fire your ass and hire someone who can. Year 2, 3, and 4, same story. My second term campaign is "I cut spending in half in the last 4 years. If you want it cut in half again, vote for me again."

alfadriver wrote:

aussiesmg wrote: Never were truer words spoken Oldsaw, there would be no government without small business. How can the government take an income (sic) of $100 and then spend $200, if we did that we would go to jail, especially if it was some else's $200

So, quick question, where were your posts for the previous 8 years when they did the same thing???? Just curious.

Did you check my posts for the past 8 years? If not this statement seems to be purely to stir the pot, I didn't state any party was to blame. I note you have no positive idea to offer just a shot at any post that might be seen to be anti (your party here).

I run a small business and it doesn't matter who is in power, the problem is as stated, spending outpacing income is illegal, immoral and a recipe for problems in any household, how can any government do this?

Yet our governing parties have seen fit to outspend the country's income for year after year, and they seem to be gaining momentum.

I keep saying the two party plan is a joke, all they care about is being re-elected and their career, to hell with the populace. the best options IMHO are a new party or a term limit on an and all senators/representatives to match the Presidential limit.

They make this all out to be so difficult, it is not, spend less on BS and be responsible for your own actions, hmmm sort of sounds like any business that is going to survive the crisis, without government bailout money that is.

DILYSI Dave wrote: Rather than raise taxes and cut spending, I'd go for cut taxes and cut spending a LOT more. Same effect of getting the house in order, but also leaves money in the private sector where it can grow the economy. Currently, if a Dept is scheduled to get a 5% bump and they only get a 3% bump, they consider that a spending cut. berkeley that. Day 1. Every department is to submit to me within 60 days a budget that is 15% lower than the current. If you can't do it, I fire your ass and hire someone who can. Year 2, 3, and 4, same story. My second term campaign is "I cut spending in half in the last 4 years. If you want it cut in half again, vote for me again."

You have my vote Dave, want any help on that platform just give me a call.

fast_eddie_72 wrote: Here’s a thought for you. Look at the budget- I think they have it on Wikipedia. If you add up all the lines associated with Social Security, the Military, Medicade and Medicare you get 75% of the budget. So why don’t any of the political ads on TV talk about those things?

I'll tell you why. You add up all the people who benefit from those, you get a lot of voters.

I have observed the same thing though. Even the Tea Party doesn't seem to want to commit to cut those (although finding anything specific they want to do is pretty hard). There were some cuts to the military recently, guess what happened? The "cut-spending" republicans started screaming about "endangering America" if you try to cut Medicare I am sure most will yell, "they're killing grandma"... ...you really can't win. The Dems seem to think spending can fix everything, well, at least they are consistent.