Forum Thread

Please, I could use your help.

Reply to ThreadDisplaying 16 - 18 of 18 Prev 1 2
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?

    Dear Lonely Bird,

    Thanks a lot. I have a hard time knowing how my communications to others are being taken, especially over the Internet. But as you mention the recovery, or the economy in general, let me start there.

    We know that unforeseen events, political opposition, or both, can interfere with even perfect plans and change success into failure. I'm not, at the moment. interested in those things. Yes, they're powerful and important to understand, but because my question was as you point out, so broad, I'd rather take this in small bites. Then we can get into a deeper analysis. Put another way, I'd like to see what happened first, then look at why it happened.

    One possible response to the question of the economy might be: "The economy is doing remarkably well. We can see this from the number of employed citizens as reported by (whoever reports these things). The stock market indices have also gone way up. The level of poverty among Americans is falling as shown by these figures (whatever they are.) This improvement is primarily the result of the stimulus, increased food stamp spending, and extended periods of unemployment benefits. The stimulus created X million jobs, food stamp spending and longer periods of unemployment benefits have decreased poverty, and (something or other) increased stock prices."

    The other posters here might have more to add, or might disagree with parts of it, or just different analysis, I don't know. We could do the same thing with international stability, the rights of minorities, domestic violence, and other broad areas.

    I'm only writing this because you asked me to. I'm still kind of sensitive to the charge that i was setting a trap. That's why I promised not to respond unless I was asked to, I hoped that would reduce the fear people had.

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?

    Unfortunately small bites cannot be taken in the manner of your example. The factors such as intransigence by the opposition party impact the results of policy by the administration as regards the economy. The problem is that nothing exists in a vacuum. While increased demand due to stimulus has allowed for much private sector hiring we note that wages have not really grown much for example. This is due to the private sector, period. The failure to the economic theory which has been clung to for 30+ years continues to cloud the landscape. The private sector not only cannot allocate resources adequately nor solve all problems that is not its purpose. the private sector in other countries, most notably Northern Europe and Australia, has both been forced and willingly noted that labor as well as government play key roles in balancing the political economy for the benefit of all three and society as a whole. Thus comments about issues such as poverty increasing in the u.s. despite stimulus or the rise of the stock markets are of necessity nonsense. These things are all of a set, the system of the whole. Yet for the past 80+ years the default setting is to discuss "the economy" as though it is a separate thing unimpacted except negatively by government. Nothing could be more untrue.

    So. We can put forth a simplistic answer and say, yes, the economy has improved. Yes, it was as a result of the policies put forth by the administration. Yes, things could be better but they are better than they were at the close of the bush administration. But the actual answers are more nuanced than that. And they always will be. On a side but related note the conservative faction has claimed that things are not better, that there has not been job growth and so on. Sadly, the only conclusion that can be made regarding these statements is that they are lies, pure and simple. Could things be better? Of course they could. But such claims made by those who offered nothing must be cast aside as nonsense.

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
    Dialogue Wrote:

    Hello Charles,

    Long time reader, reluctant commentator, and former liberal here.

    First off, I'm sure your sister is a fine lady. :)

    Is your conclusion, that she is a "strong" liberal, accurate? Does her "reluctance to discuss topics beyond her first comment" exist because only strong emotion exists below the surface of the "first comment"?

    Ask her some time to define, compare and contrast Keynesian Economics to Austrian Economics. This is not a political question but will show if there is a foundation to the "first comments". :)

    I suggest reading and asking your sister if she has read, "The Wealth of Nations" by Adam Smith and "The Road to Serfdom" by Dr. Friedrich August Von Heyak. FYI, Adam Smith founded Economics as a field of study.

    Sorry to see you had so many negative responses on the forum but it could have been worse... :) You could have said you were a Christian.

    Democrats have a very large tent, we're mostly inclusive, and I have advice for you, don't give someone who you do not know any advice, simply because you're not personally acquainted with them. And BTW, would it be disturbing to you if you were to find out that some democrats are also Christians?