Export thread
Why do people often vote against their own interests?
#1
@Li3n
@Li3n
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8474611.stm
People make me sad...
The Republicans' shock victory in the election for the US Senate seat in Massachusetts meant the Democrats lost their supermajority in the Senate. This makes it even harder for the Obama administration to get healthcare reform passed in the US.
Political scientist Dr David Runciman looks at why is there often such deep opposition to reforms that appear to be of obvious benefit to voters.
Last year, in a series of \"town-hall meetings\" across the country, Americans got the chance to debate President Obama's proposed healthcare reforms.
What happened was an explosion of rage and barely suppressed violence.
Polling evidence suggests that the numbers who think the reforms go too far are nearly matched by those who think they do not go far enough.
But it is striking that the people who most dislike the whole idea of healthcare reform - the ones who think it is socialist, godless, a step on the road to a police state - are often the ones it seems designed to help.
In Texas, where barely two-thirds of the population have full health insurance and over a fifth of all children have no cover at all, opposition to the legislation is currently running at 87%.
Anger
Instead, to many of those who lose out under the existing system, reform still seems like the ultimate betrayal.
Why are so many American voters enraged by attempts to change a horribly inefficient system that leaves them with premiums they often cannot afford?
Why are they manning the barricades to defend insurance companies that routinely deny claims and cancel policies?
It might be tempting to put the whole thing down to what the historian Richard Hofstadter back in the 1960s called \"the paranoid style\" of American politics, in which God, guns and race get mixed into a toxic stew of resentment at anything coming out of Washington.
But that would be a mistake.
If people vote against their own interests, it is not because they do not understand what is in their interest or have not yet had it properly explained to them.
They do it because they resent having their interests decided for them by politicians who think they know best.
There is nothing voters hate more than having things explained to them as though they were idiots.
As the saying goes, in politics, when you are explaining, you are losing. And that makes anything as complex or as messy as healthcare reform a very hard sell.
Stories not facts
In his book The Political Brain, psychologist Drew Westen, an exasperated Democrat, tried to show why the Right often wins the argument even when the Left is confident that it has the facts on its side.
He uses the following exchange from the first presidential debate between Al Gore and George Bush in 2000 to illustrate the perils of trying to explain to voters what will make them better off:
Gore: \"Under the governor's plan, if you kept the same fee for service that you have now under Medicare, your premiums would go up by between 18% and 47%, and that is the study of the Congressional plan that he's modelled his proposal on by the Medicare actuaries.\"
Bush: \"Look, this is a man who has great numbers. He talks about numbers.
\"I'm beginning to think not only did he invent the internet, but he invented the calculator. It's fuzzy math. It's trying to scare people in the voting booth.\"
Mr Gore was talking sense and Mr Bush nonsense - but Mr Bush won the debate. With statistics, the voters just hear a patronising policy wonk, and switch off.
For Mr Westen, stories always trump statistics, which means the politician with the best stories is going to win: \"One of the fallacies that politicians often have on the Left is that things are obvious, when they are not obvious.
\"Obama's administration made a tremendous mistake by not immediately branding the economic collapse that we had just had as the Republicans' Depression, caused by the Bush administration's ideology of unregulated greed. The result is that now people blame him.\"
Reverse revolution
Thomas Frank, the author of the best-selling book What's The Matter with Kansas, is an even more exasperated Democrat and he goes further than Mr Westen.
He believes that the voters' preference for emotional engagement over reasonable argument has allowed the Republican Party to blind them to their own real interests.
The Republicans have learnt how to stoke up resentment against the patronising liberal elite, all those do-gooders who assume they know what poor people ought to be thinking.
Right-wing politics has become a vehicle for channelling this popular anger against intellectual snobs. The result is that many of America's poorest citizens have a deep emotional attachment to a party that serves the interests of its richest.
Thomas Frank says that whatever disadvantaged Americans think they are voting for, they get something quite different:
\"You vote to strike a blow against elitism and you receive a social order in which wealth is more concentrated than ever before in our life times, workers have been stripped of power, and CEOs are rewarded in a manner that is beyond imagining.
\"It's like a French Revolution in reverse in which the workers come pouring down the street screaming more power to the aristocracy.\"
As Mr Frank sees it, authenticity has replaced economics as the driving force of modern politics. The authentic politicians are the ones who sound like they are speaking from the gut, not the cerebral cortex. Of course, they might be faking it, but it is no joke to say that in contemporary politics, if you can fake sincerity, you have got it made.
And the ultimate sin in modern politics is appearing to take the voters for granted.
This is a culture war but it is not simply being driven by differences over abortion, or religion, or patriotism. And it is not simply Red states vs. Blue states any more. It is a war on the entire political culture, on the arrogance of politicians, on their slipperiness and lack of principle, on their endless deal making and compromises.
And when the politicians say to the people protesting: 'But we're doing this for you', that just makes it worse. In fact, that seems to be what makes them angriest of all.
People make me sad...
#2
Dusty668
Dusty668
1.75 trillion in deficit. They are doing it for the chillren, which frankly shocks the hell outta me.http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8474611.stm
He believes that the voters' preference for emotional engagement over reasonable argument has allowed the Republican Party to blind them to their own real interests.
People make me sad...
#3
Soliloquy
Soliloquy
Yeah, the article seems to pretend that it's fairly cut-and-dry what's in the people's best interest. I'd argue otherwise.
#4
D
Dubyamn
D
Dubyamn
Also you can consider how Mass. already has universal health care coverage and you realize that the article is flat out dead wrong in this situation. They didn't vote against their interest because they are already covered. In the end they decided not to vote for a crappy crappy candidate who ran such a sloppy ill put together campaign that her campaign just went silent for weeks on end.
#5
Krisken
Krisken
Exactly. This point also shows how silly the claim of Mass. being a mandate against the healthcare plan really is.Also you can consider how Mass. already has universal health care coverage and you realize that the article is flat out dead wrong in this situation. They didn't vote against their interest because they are already covered. In the end they decided not to vote for a crappy crappy candidate who ran such a sloppy ill put together campaign that her campaign just went silent for weeks on end.
#6
Hailey Knight
Hailey Knight
I don't agree with the whole article, but this bit makes sense to me. Republican party is certainly better at working people than the Democratic party.Right-wing politics has become a vehicle for channelling this popular anger against intellectual snobs. The result is that many of America's poorest citizens have a deep emotional attachment to a party that serves the interests of its richest.
#7
Espy
Espy
Wow, what a terrible article.
#9
Espy
Don't get me wrong, it's got some good stuff in it that I agree with but it's just a smarmy smear piece. Hell, Rush Limbaugh makes some good points but it doesn't mean I'm going to listen to him if I want a good objective view.
Espy
What do you disagree with?[/QUOTE]Wow, what a terrible article.
Don't get me wrong, it's got some good stuff in it that I agree with but it's just a smarmy smear piece. Hell, Rush Limbaugh makes some good points but it doesn't mean I'm going to listen to him if I want a good objective view.
#10
Shakey
I think this also comes with the increasing amount of people who consider themselves independent. Instead of trying to vote in your party, it now becomes voting out a party you don't like. But really, the Mass election was more about the Democrats picking their butts expecting a win than it was anything else.
Shakey
I thought he has always blamed the economic problems on Bush. I don't think people blame him for the economic problems, but for what he's doing to fix it.Obama's administration made a tremendous mistake by not immediately branding the economic collapse that we had just had as the Republicans' Depression, caused by the Bush administration's ideology of unregulated greed. The result is that now people blame him.
I think this also comes with the increasing amount of people who consider themselves independent. Instead of trying to vote in your party, it now becomes voting out a party you don't like. But really, the Mass election was more about the Democrats picking their butts expecting a win than it was anything else.
#11
Espy
[/QUOTE]
Yeah, I don't think the dems problem is NOT saying everything is Bush's fault... Even so, the fact is the reason the dems haven't gained ground with some silly label like the above is because it's a very complicated problem, our economic woes. It's far to simplistic and naive to say , "Party A did it" and most of the american people seem to understand that, hence attempts by both sides failing.
Espy
I thought he has always blamed the economic problems on Bush. I don't think people blame him for the economic problems, but for what he's doing to fix it.Obama's administration made a tremendous mistake by not immediately branding the economic collapse that we had just had as the Republicans' Depression, caused by the Bush administration's ideology of unregulated greed. The result is that now people blame him.
[/QUOTE]
Yeah, I don't think the dems problem is NOT saying everything is Bush's fault... Even so, the fact is the reason the dems haven't gained ground with some silly label like the above is because it's a very complicated problem, our economic woes. It's far to simplistic and naive to say , "Party A did it" and most of the american people seem to understand that, hence attempts by both sides failing.
#12
Soliloquy
Soliloquy
I think that the main problem for Obama is the way he ran his campaign. Intentionally or unintentionally, he created this popular image for himself as having some kind of surefire solution to the nation's economic woes. And that's why people voted for him. (Well, that and the fact that Sarah Palin has the IQ of two chimpanzees tied together.)
When things only got worse after Obama came into office, people began to see the instant magical recovery that they voted for as nothing but a lie, and so they turned against him.
Personally, I think that Obama's "I will fix everything immediately" image during the election was intentional, so the people turning against him is well-deserved.
When things only got worse after Obama came into office, people began to see the instant magical recovery that they voted for as nothing but a lie, and so they turned against him.
Personally, I think that Obama's "I will fix everything immediately" image during the election was intentional, so the people turning against him is well-deserved.
#13
Bubble181
Bubble181
To be fair, those'd have to be some pretty below-average chimps.
#14
Kitty Sinatra
. . . ah crap. Now I'm picturing Sarah Palin dressed in leather with a whip. and it turns me on.
Kitty Sinatra
Well they did somehow manage to get themselves tied together. That's not very bright . . .To be fair, those'd have to be some pretty below-average chimps.
. . . ah crap. Now I'm picturing Sarah Palin dressed in leather with a whip. and it turns me on.
#15
Bubble181
Bubble181
Perhaps you and me can be the chimps? 
#16
Chibibar
Chibibar
I think soliloquy insulted the chimpsTo be fair, those'd have to be some pretty below-average chimps.
#17
Kitty Sinatra
Kitty Sinatra
You Betcha!Perhaps you and me can be the chimps?
#18
Bubble181
Bubble181
Oh, you Maverick! :sly:
#19
@Li3n
@Li3n
Actually the biggest problem with the article is that the reason why health care etc was stalled was the Democrats, seeing how they had a supermajority already.
But it does make a good point about how people tend to respond better to the emotional appeal then actual facts (look at that Bush quote, i for one wouldn't want someone who said that run a hotdog stand, let alone a country).
And of course Massachusetts has about the crappy dem candidate, as one can easily see by the fact that at the start she was ahead by plenty in the polls...
But it does make a good point about how people tend to respond better to the emotional appeal then actual facts (look at that Bush quote, i for one wouldn't want someone who said that run a hotdog stand, let alone a country).
And of course Massachusetts has about the crappy dem candidate, as one can easily see by the fact that at the start she was ahead by plenty in the polls...
Yeah, who the hell wants not to have to go into debt over health bills...Yeah, the article seems to pretend that it's fairly cut-and-dry what's in the people's best interest. I'd argue otherwise.
View attachment 286I think that the main problem for Obama is the way he ran his campaign. Intentionally or unintentionally, he created this popular image for himself as having some kind of surefire solution to the nation's economic woes. And that's why people voted for him. (Well, that and the fact that Sarah Palin has the IQ of two chimpanzees tied together.)
When things only got worse after Obama came into office, people began to see the instant magical recovery that they voted for as nothing but a lie, and so they turned against him.
Personally, I think that Obama's "I will fix everything immediately" image during the election was intentional, so the people turning against him is well-deserved.
Attachments
-
61.7 KB Views: 261
#20
Soliloquy
Soliloquy
Ah, yes, I forgot that a massive experimental overhaul of the nation's Healthcare system could have no other possible results than to solve every problem for everyone, ever.Actually the biggest problem with the article is that the reason why health care etc was stalled was the Democrats, seeing how they had a supermajority already.
But it does make a good point about how people tend to respond better to the emotional appeal then actual facts (look at that Bush quote, i for one wouldn't want someone who said that run a hotdog stand, let alone a country).
And of course Massachusetts has about the crappy dem candidate, as one can easily see by the fact that at the start she was ahead by plenty in the polls...
Yeah, who the hell wants not to have to go into debt over health bills...Yeah, the article seems to pretend that it's fairly cut-and-dry what's in the people's best interest. I'd argue otherwise.
You forget, Obama's not magic.View attachment 286I think that the main problem for Obama is the way he ran his campaign. Intentionally or unintentionally, he created this popular image for himself as having some kind of surefire solution to the nation's economic woes. And that's why people voted for him. (Well, that and the fact that Sarah Palin has the IQ of two chimpanzees tied together.)
When things only got worse after Obama came into office, people began to see the instant magical recovery that they voted for as nothing but a lie, and so they turned against him.
Personally, I think that Obama's \\"I will fix everything immediately\\" image during the election was intentional, so the people turning against him is well-deserved.
#21
Kitty Sinatra
I'm a bit of masochist, I suppose.
Kitty Sinatra
I don't know about everyone else but for me, voting against my own interests gets me horny.Why do people often vote against their own interests?
I'm a bit of masochist, I suppose.
#22
Chibibar
Chibibar
Well. I guess because Government health insurance (military one) is not so good.
This is from my friends who serve and still use military insurance (veteran and stuff) It is tough to see a doctor, heck, a friend of mine need some require med but STILL requires to see a specialist BUT can't see a specialist before seeing general physicians. It usually takes him about 2-3 months to get a refill (I can't remember what med but I remember he complains every 6 months for it) it is a pain in the butt.
Now...... that is existing government run health insurance for Vet. I don't have personal experience on that, but if my friend is having that kind of issue while I can go to a specialist without having to see general physician because my insurance allows me to (25$ to see a specialist and 20$ for a primary care) and get my meds (if I need any) in less than 1 week. now that is a big difference.
It seems that when it comes to benefits (Medicade is another government run health insurance for seniors... let not even go there when my in-law is having issues to get stuff done for her and she is disable via medicade) Social Security - another government run benefits that has exist for YEARS and now in trouble.
This is from my friends who serve and still use military insurance (veteran and stuff) It is tough to see a doctor, heck, a friend of mine need some require med but STILL requires to see a specialist BUT can't see a specialist before seeing general physicians. It usually takes him about 2-3 months to get a refill (I can't remember what med but I remember he complains every 6 months for it) it is a pain in the butt.
Now...... that is existing government run health insurance for Vet. I don't have personal experience on that, but if my friend is having that kind of issue while I can go to a specialist without having to see general physician because my insurance allows me to (25$ to see a specialist and 20$ for a primary care) and get my meds (if I need any) in less than 1 week. now that is a big difference.
It seems that when it comes to benefits (Medicade is another government run health insurance for seniors... let not even go there when my in-law is having issues to get stuff done for her and she is disable via medicade) Social Security - another government run benefits that has exist for YEARS and now in trouble.
#23
GasBandit
GasBandit
That article represents a great many false premises and failures of understanding. But hey, nannystate reporter can't understand why Americans don't want to be a nannystate too.
Also, remember, the bill in its latest form actually would INCREASE medical costs, not decrease, and wouldn't even succeed in covering all the uncovered. Alien's falling into the trap that so many have lately - they're attaching their own wishful thinking and intentions to a bill that actually had very little to do with decreasing medical costs and everything to do with increasing government control over the private sector and increasing its intrusiveness into the lives of private citizens.
Also, remember, the bill in its latest form actually would INCREASE medical costs, not decrease, and wouldn't even succeed in covering all the uncovered. Alien's falling into the trap that so many have lately - they're attaching their own wishful thinking and intentions to a bill that actually had very little to do with decreasing medical costs and everything to do with increasing government control over the private sector and increasing its intrusiveness into the lives of private citizens.
#24
Chibibar
Chibibar
before there were suggestion of expanding medicare, I don't know why they just expand that system to include people who can't afford it (that is what it boils down to) Of course the BIG thing that government won't touch is legal stuff like ability to file suit or limit them. I personally think that would be a BIG step.
#25
Krisken
I should add that this requirement is added to keep costs down. Specialist visits are expensive and require resources that are limited. If you want to know more about healthcare costs, I'm happy to share what I do know. (I'm studying healthcare reimbursement for a career, almost finished with the program).
Krisken
Almost all insurance has this requirement, not just VA insurance. (Source: Principles of Healthcare Reimbursement, Second Edition, Casto, B Anne; Layman, Elizabeth, pp 49-65)Well. I guess because Government health insurance (military one) is not so good.
This is from my friends who serve and still use military insurance (veteran and stuff) It is tough to see a doctor, heck, a friend of mine need some require med but STILL requires to see a specialist BUT can't see a specialist before seeing general physicians.
I should add that this requirement is added to keep costs down. Specialist visits are expensive and require resources that are limited. If you want to know more about healthcare costs, I'm happy to share what I do know. (I'm studying healthcare reimbursement for a career, almost finished with the program).
#26
Chibibar
I should add that this requirement is added to keep costs down. Specialist visits are expensive and require resources that are limited. If you want to know more about healthcare costs, I'm happy to share what I do know. (I'm studying healthcare reimbursement for a career, almost finished with the program).[/QUOTE]
True, but I can get visit of my doctor (which is more open than VA version) and see a specialist.
Now in terms of refilling prescription, I mean come on. I think it was blood pressure medicine. He has been taking the same thing and getting 2 physical each year and blood work. (I think that is right I gotta ask next time I see him). Of course a friend of mine is an optometrist for the Navy. He said it took 3 months to get standard ISSUE glasses
bleh. I can get mine in less than a week with my insurance.
Chibibar
Almost all insurance has this requirement, not just VA insurance. (Source: Principles of Healthcare Reimbursement, Second Edition, Casto, B Anne; Layman, Elizabeth, pp 49-65)Well. I guess because Government health insurance (military one) is not so good.
This is from my friends who serve and still use military insurance (veteran and stuff) It is tough to see a doctor, heck, a friend of mine need some require med but STILL requires to see a specialist BUT can't see a specialist before seeing general physicians.
I should add that this requirement is added to keep costs down. Specialist visits are expensive and require resources that are limited. If you want to know more about healthcare costs, I'm happy to share what I do know. (I'm studying healthcare reimbursement for a career, almost finished with the program).[/QUOTE]
True, but I can get visit of my doctor (which is more open than VA version) and see a specialist.
Now in terms of refilling prescription, I mean come on. I think it was blood pressure medicine. He has been taking the same thing and getting 2 physical each year and blood work. (I think that is right I gotta ask next time I see him). Of course a friend of mine is an optometrist for the Navy. He said it took 3 months to get standard ISSUE glasses
bleh. I can get mine in less than a week with my insurance.
#27
@Li3n
Because doing nothing is better then the possibility of failure...
I believe that was kinda the joke...
@Li3n
Ah, yes, I forgot that a massive experimental overhaul of the nation's Healthcare system could have no other possible results than to solve every problem for everyone, ever.[/QUOTE]Actually the biggest problem with the article is that the reason why health care etc was stalled was the Democrats, seeing how they had a supermajority already.
But it does make a good point about how people tend to respond better to the emotional appeal then actual facts (look at that Bush quote, i for one wouldn't want someone who said that run a hotdog stand, let alone a country).
And of course Massachusetts has about the crappy dem candidate, as one can easily see by the fact that at the start she was ahead by plenty in the polls...
Yeah, who the hell wants not to have to go into debt over health bills...Yeah, the article seems to pretend that it's fairly cut-and-dry what's in the people's best interest. I'd argue otherwise.
Because doing nothing is better then the possibility of failure...
You forget, Obama's not magic.[/QUOTE]View attachment 286I think that the main problem for Obama is the way he ran his campaign. Intentionally or unintentionally, he created this popular image for himself as having some kind of surefire solution to the nation's economic woes. And that's why people voted for him. (Well, that and the fact that Sarah Palin has the IQ of two chimpanzees tied together.)
When things only got worse after Obama came into office, people began to see the instant magical recovery that they voted for as nothing but a lie, and so they turned against him.
Personally, I think that Obama's \\\"I will fix everything immediately\\\" image during the election was intentional, so the people turning against him is well-deserved.
I believe that was kinda the joke...
#28
GasBandit
GasBandit
More like doing nothing is better than the almost complete guarantee of failure along with hundreds of billions in pork, payoffs and slush.Because doing nothing is better then the possibility of failure...
#29
@Li3n
And i'm sure you didn't bother with the numbers because math is fuzzy...
@Li3n
More like doing nothing is better than the almost complete guarantee of failure along with hundreds of billions in pork, payoffs and slush.[/QUOTE]Because doing nothing is better then the possibility of failure...
And i'm sure you didn't bother with the numbers because math is fuzzy...
#30
Soliloquy
I believe that was kinda the joke...[/QUOTE]
That's why I responded with a joke...
Soliloquy
You forget, Obama's not magic.[/QUOTE]Actually the biggest problem with the article is that the reason why health care etc was stalled was the Democrats, seeing how they had a supermajority already.
View attachment 286I think that the main problem for Obama is the way he ran his campaign. Intentionally or unintentionally, he created this popular image for himself as having some kind of surefire solution to the nation's economic woes. And that's why people voted for him. (Well, that and the fact that Sarah Palin has the IQ of two chimpanzees tied together.)
When things only got worse after Obama came into office, people began to see the instant magical recovery that they voted for as nothing but a lie, and so they turned against him.
Personally, I think that Obama's \\\\"I will fix everything immediately\\\\" image during the election was intentional, so the people turning against him is well-deserved.
I believe that was kinda the joke...[/QUOTE]
That's why I responded with a joke...
#31
GasBandit
And i'm sure you didn't bother with the numbers because math is fuzzy...[/QUOTE]
You've made nothing but snarky unsubstantiated assertions and then start heaving bricks from your glass porch? You make me laugh.
It's painfully obvious however. We've even got an american example to look at - Massachusetts, where the election in question just happened.
GasBandit
More like doing nothing is better than the almost complete guarantee of failure along with hundreds of billions in pork, payoffs and slush.[/QUOTE]Because doing nothing is better then the possibility of failure...
And i'm sure you didn't bother with the numbers because math is fuzzy...
[/QUOTE]You've made nothing but snarky unsubstantiated assertions and then start heaving bricks from your glass porch? You make me laugh.
It's painfully obvious however. We've even got an american example to look at - Massachusetts, where the election in question just happened.
All to address a largely ficticious number. Manufactured crisis, poisonous solution. NOW which side's math is fuzzy?A 2008 analysis by Kaiser Permanente's Patricia Lynch published by Health Affairs noted that in addition to Washington and New York, the individual insurance markets in Kentucky, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey and Vermont \"deteriorated\" after the enactment of guaranteed issue. Individual insurance became significantly more expensive and there was no significant decrease in the number of uninsured.
#32
Soliloquy
Soliloquy
Oh, and:
Because doing nothing is better then the possibility of failure...
[/quote]
I agree that something should be done about healthcare, but saying that, by proxy, this massive experiment needs to be passed is fallacy.
A specific fallacy called the Politician's Syllogism, in fact.
Ah, yes, I forgot that a massive experimental overhaul of the nation's Healthcare system could have no other possible results than to solve every problem for everyone, ever.[/QUOTE]Actually the biggest problem with the article is that the reason why health care etc was stalled was the Democrats, seeing how they had a supermajority already.
But it does make a good point about how people tend to respond better to the emotional appeal then actual facts (look at that Bush quote, i for one wouldn't want someone who said that run a hotdog stand, let alone a country).
And of course Massachusetts has about the crappy dem candidate, as one can easily see by the fact that at the start she was ahead by plenty in the polls...
Yeah, who the hell wants not to have to go into debt over health bills...Yeah, the article seems to pretend that it's fairly cut-and-dry what's in the people's best interest. I'd argue otherwise.
Because doing nothing is better then the possibility of failure...
[/quote]
I agree that something should be done about healthcare, but saying that, by proxy, this massive experiment needs to be passed is fallacy.
A specific fallacy called the Politician's Syllogism, in fact.
#33
GasBandit
GasBandit
Exactly. The same fallacy that got us multiple useless bailouts which completely failed to avert economic disaster or kickstart recovery. "We've got to do something NOW NOW NOW" got us trillions further into the hole and worsened unemployment past 10%.I agree that something needs to be done about healthcare, but saying that, by proxy, this massive experiment needs to be passed is fallacy.
A specific fallacy called the Politician's Syllogism, in fact.
#34
Chibibar
bingo. I think a lot of the bailout is a mistake (just my opinion) We learn a lot of things in economic and things happen for a reason and usually fix itself (the whole balance thing) of course it "could be worst" but that is the whole point of economic isn't it? A quick fix like the government is trying to do is just a bandaid and prolong the events (again my opinion from what I learn from my economic class)
Of course some would say, it could cost massive failure and closure, but then some other bank will pick up the slacks. I know that mortgage get traded all the time. Heck, my home loan was already sold off to another bank before I made my first payment.
Also the bailout money was so quick and messy, congress didn't even think (I assume) on using tax payer money on bonus that was promise on contract.
Chibibar
Exactly. The same fallacy that got us multiple useless bailouts which completely failed to avert economic disaster or kickstart recovery. "We've got to do something NOW NOW NOW" got us trillions further into the hole and worsened unemployment past 10%.[/QUOTE]I agree that something needs to be done about healthcare, but saying that, by proxy, this massive experiment needs to be passed is fallacy.
A specific fallacy called the Politician's Syllogism, in fact.
bingo. I think a lot of the bailout is a mistake (just my opinion) We learn a lot of things in economic and things happen for a reason and usually fix itself (the whole balance thing) of course it "could be worst" but that is the whole point of economic isn't it? A quick fix like the government is trying to do is just a bandaid and prolong the events (again my opinion from what I learn from my economic class)
Of course some would say, it could cost massive failure and closure, but then some other bank will pick up the slacks. I know that mortgage get traded all the time. Heck, my home loan was already sold off to another bank before I made my first payment.
Also the bailout money was so quick and messy, congress didn't even think (I assume) on using tax payer money on bonus that was promise on contract.
#35
@Li3n
@Li3n
Ok, first off, anyone who believed the bailouts where meant to make the crisis go away as if by bloody magic, pls stop talking...especially since most economies are in recovery (jobless as it may be).
Actually here, have some perspective: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Law_(economist) The economic collapse in France lead to happy guillotine time, not something you can calculate using anything you learn in any economics class (they don't even tell you not to offer starving people rotten cake).
The bonuses thing was a retarded oversight (and by oversight i mean they didn't care or where even colluding with the companies). Just like not breaking up the "too big to fail" banks now that they can... but hey, the free market has spoken, and it says money pwns (poor Adam Smith, he did reiterate over and over that the invisible hand only works if everyone plays fair).
But show me an alternative that doesn't amount to "let the market deal with it, it worked so well so far" and i'll believe you.
@GB
How many of those "not a citizen" are actually illegals as opposed to green card workers, that actually pay taxes?!
Also, is it just me or are some of those articles saying that if people get government health care they'd start leaving private ones (which leads them to charge more)?! Or is that individual insurance vs group insurance?!
Also, the fuzzy math comment was about a quote from Bush up on the page, and he was talking about Gore, so it was already about the democrats.
Actually here, have some perspective: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Law_(economist) The economic collapse in France lead to happy guillotine time, not something you can calculate using anything you learn in any economics class (they don't even tell you not to offer starving people rotten cake).
The bonuses thing was a retarded oversight (and by oversight i mean they didn't care or where even colluding with the companies). Just like not breaking up the "too big to fail" banks now that they can... but hey, the free market has spoken, and it says money pwns (poor Adam Smith, he did reiterate over and over that the invisible hand only works if everyone plays fair).
Then maybe you should have used some puns or something... make it sound less dry and maybe it wouldn't be taken as a rebuttal that also includes a funny video.That's why I responded with a joke...
Wow, it's almost like i chose the word nothing on purpose... crazy, right?I agree that something should be done about healthcare, but saying that, by proxy, this massive experiment needs to be passed is fallacy.
A specific fallacy called the Politician's Syllogism, in fact.
But show me an alternative that doesn't amount to "let the market deal with it, it worked so well so far" and i'll believe you.
@GB
How many of those "not a citizen" are actually illegals as opposed to green card workers, that actually pay taxes?!
Also, is it just me or are some of those articles saying that if people get government health care they'd start leaving private ones (which leads them to charge more)?! Or is that individual insurance vs group insurance?!
Also, the fuzzy math comment was about a quote from Bush up on the page, and he was talking about Gore, so it was already about the democrats.
#36
Kitty Sinatra
Kitty Sinatra
I've always taken that phrase to mean "too big to allow to fail."Just like not breaking up the "too big to fail" banks now that they can..
#37
GasBandit
From this week's Frontline newsletter by John Maudlin:
GasBandit
You got some links showing this supposed "recovery?" And here's a hint - the 5% increase in GDP doesn't count. Productivity is not really increasing. It only seems like it's increasing because employers used the recession as an excuse to fire everyone on the payroll who was useless. With fewer employees on the payroll and with sales up, productivity artificially appears to be up. However, this is an artificial increase. And in order for inventories to continue to be rebuilt, employees will have to be rehired, because productivity is simply not this good. And with all the huge tax increases in Obama's proposed 2011 budget, and with the uncertainty of cap and trade looming in the future, businesses are still keeping the hatches battened down.Ok, first off, anyone who believed the bailouts where meant to make the crisis go away as if by bloody magic, pls stop talking...especially since most economies are in recovery (jobless as it may be).
From this week's Frontline newsletter by John Maudlin:
We stand, in fact, an excellent chance of heading into a double dip recession here.\\"Fourth (and quoting David): \\"... if you believe the GDP data -- remember, there are more revisions to come -- then you de facto must be of the view that productivity growth is soaring at over a 6% annual rate. No doubt productivity is rising -- just look at the never-ending slate of layoff announcements. But we came off a cycle with no technological advance and no capital deepening, so it is hard to believe that productivity at this time is growing at a pace that is four times the historical norm. Sorry, but we're not buyers of that view. In the fourth quarter, aggregate private hours worked contracted at a 0.5% annual rate and what we can tell you is that such a decline in labor input has never before, scanning over 50 years of data, coincided with a GDP headline this good. \\"Normally, GDP growth is 1.7% when hours worked is this weak, and that is exactly the trend that was depicted this week in the release of the Chicago Fed's National Activity Index, which was widely ignored. On the flip side, when we have in the past seen GDP growth come in at or near a 5.7% annual rate, what is typical is that hours worked grows at a 3.7% rate. No matter how you slice it, the GDP number today represented not just a rare but an unprecedented event, and as such, we are willing to treat the report with an entire saltshaker -- a few grains won't do.\\"
#38
Chibibar
Chibibar
@li3n: ok. the current form of the bailout is a mistake. I think blindly (well mostly blind) giving money to banks without looking too deep or setting up specific rule use of money is not good planning. I read a few news (when the money was first handed the first time around) that banks are "holding it" instead of lending out those money. Some use money to fix their internal debts and even give bonuses. that is bad use to tax money. Congress should have waited and set up rules before handing out the cash.
@GB: I have to agree. We are around 10% unemployment. that is pretty high in a long while. How can we be "productive"? does this mean that all the extra people fired are just dead beat to begin with? if it is (in short view) then the business really need to rethink their organization.
@GB: I have to agree. We are around 10% unemployment. that is pretty high in a long while. How can we be "productive"? does this mean that all the extra people fired are just dead beat to begin with? if it is (in short view) then the business really need to rethink their organization.
#39
Soliloquy
Soliloquy
I'm... not sure what you're asking me to prove here. That alternative proposals exist? That it's possible to come up with another option to improve the health care industry besides the 1000+ pages of untested ideas that congress is putting together?Wow, it's almost like i chose the word nothing on purpose... crazy, right?I agree that something should be done about healthcare, but saying that, by proxy, this massive experiment needs to be passed is fallacy.
A specific fallacy called the Politician's Syllogism, in fact.
But show me an alternative that doesn't amount to "let the market deal with it, it worked so well so far" and i'll believe you.
#40
Chibibar
personally I think something of this caliber (which is huge) should NOT be rush like Obama and Congress try to do. It is a massive undertaking. I mean this bill could essentially change the way people look at healthcare.
Chibibar
I'm... not sure what you're asking me to prove here. That alternative proposals exist? That it's possible to come up with another option to improve the health care industry besides the 1000+ pages of untested ideas that congress is putting together?[/QUOTE]Wow, it's almost like i chose the word nothing on purpose... crazy, right?I agree that something should be done about healthcare, but saying that, by proxy, this massive experiment needs to be passed is fallacy.
A specific fallacy called the Politician's Syllogism, in fact.
But show me an alternative that doesn't amount to "let the market deal with it, it worked so well so far" and i'll believe you.
personally I think something of this caliber (which is huge) should NOT be rush like Obama and Congress try to do. It is a massive undertaking. I mean this bill could essentially change the way people look at healthcare.
#41
Soliloquy
personally I think something of this caliber (which is huge) should NOT be rush like Obama and Congress try to do. It is a massive undertaking. I mean this bill could essentially change the way people look at healthcare.[/QUOTE]
That's my take on it too. Heck, I wouldn't necessarily mind a huge overhaul of the healthcare system if it was done slowly over time, so that all the unexpected kinks that will show up from the different proposals could be worked out as they show their heads, instead of piling on top of each other all at once, which is what would probably happen with the current proposal.
Of course, it doesn't look like the slow approach would work with what the democrats are planning, either. For instance, their plan for getting rid of the "preexisting conditions" thing would only work if they forced everyone to get healthcare, since otherwise it would have been too expensive of a change for insurance companies to handle. Same with pretty much everything else in the bill, from how I understand it.
Soliloquy
I'm... not sure what you're asking me to prove here. That alternative proposals exist? That it's possible to come up with another option to improve the health care industry besides the 1000+ pages of untested ideas that congress is putting together?[/QUOTE]Wow, it's almost like i chose the word nothing on purpose... crazy, right?I agree that something should be done about healthcare, but saying that, by proxy, this massive experiment needs to be passed is fallacy.
A specific fallacy called the Politician's Syllogism, in fact.
But show me an alternative that doesn't amount to "let the market deal with it, it worked so well so far" and i'll believe you.
personally I think something of this caliber (which is huge) should NOT be rush like Obama and Congress try to do. It is a massive undertaking. I mean this bill could essentially change the way people look at healthcare.[/QUOTE]
That's my take on it too. Heck, I wouldn't necessarily mind a huge overhaul of the healthcare system if it was done slowly over time, so that all the unexpected kinks that will show up from the different proposals could be worked out as they show their heads, instead of piling on top of each other all at once, which is what would probably happen with the current proposal.
Of course, it doesn't look like the slow approach would work with what the democrats are planning, either. For instance, their plan for getting rid of the "preexisting conditions" thing would only work if they forced everyone to get healthcare, since otherwise it would have been too expensive of a change for insurance companies to handle. Same with pretty much everything else in the bill, from how I understand it.
#42
Seraphyn
Seraphyn
After reading a couple of links all I see is things like "huge/massive tax increase" but it never says where (I'm assuming: income tax?) and how much. Or maybe I just seem to miss it. Can anyone tell me, cause I've gotten a bit curious.
As far as the healthcare bill, I think we can all agree that it sucks now. For us communists here in Europe it seems like a pretty weak bill and the opposition doesn't want it either. While Obama can hardly back down and ditch it now, I can't imagine he or his party is satisfied on how this thing turned out.
As far as the healthcare bill, I think we can all agree that it sucks now. For us communists here in Europe it seems like a pretty weak bill and the opposition doesn't want it either. While Obama can hardly back down and ditch it now, I can't imagine he or his party is satisfied on how this thing turned out.
#43
Chibibar
Chibibar
That is one tricky area to tackle. pre-existing conditions. I know that my father have type 2 diabetes and high blood pressure. Some insurance want to charge extra and some don't even want to take him. Insurance company like any other is here to make money. They are hoping that 1000 people paying premium and maybe 1 person need to pay out, that is good. pre-existing condition throws that out of the window. The insurance company KNOWS they WILL have to pay out. So if they have 1000 new customers with all pre-existing condition, there is no money to be made since they will be paying out to all of them.
How is that going to make them any money? All the profit from the people who doesn't have any will start going toward people who do. Also certain conditions can get pretty expensive.
How is that going to make them any money? All the profit from the people who doesn't have any will start going toward people who do. Also certain conditions can get pretty expensive.
#44
GasBandit
GasBandit
Here's an article going into details about the Obama 2011 budget's tax hikes.After reading a couple of links all I see is things like \"huge/massive tax increase\" but it never says where (I'm assuming: income tax?) and how much. Or maybe I just seem to miss it. Can anyone tell me, cause I've gotten a bit curious.
#45
Chibibar
ouch....... it is painful all around.
Chibibar
Here's an article going into details about the Obama 2011 budget's tax hikes.[/QUOTE]After reading a couple of links all I see is things like \\"huge/massive tax increase\\" but it never says where (I'm assuming: income tax?) and how much. Or maybe I just seem to miss it. Can anyone tell me, cause I've gotten a bit curious.
ouch....... it is painful all around.
#46
Krisken
ouch....... it is painful all around.[/QUOTE]
Nice article, but it does gloss over a few things. It's not "Taxes all around". It's taxes on the wealthy, estate taxes (which is labeled as The Death Tax to scare people), and big businesses. The plan for job stimulation isn't at a corporate level (which has been decreasing jobs by sending them overseas where it is cheaper to produce), but at the small business/construction level.
I'm not even going to get into the healthcare part. I've become exhausted listening to arguments against reforming healthcare.
Krisken
Here's an article going into details about the Obama 2011 budget's tax hikes.[/QUOTE]After reading a couple of links all I see is things like \\\"huge/massive tax increase\\\" but it never says where (I'm assuming: income tax?) and how much. Or maybe I just seem to miss it. Can anyone tell me, cause I've gotten a bit curious.
ouch....... it is painful all around.[/QUOTE]
Nice article, but it does gloss over a few things. It's not "Taxes all around". It's taxes on the wealthy, estate taxes (which is labeled as The Death Tax to scare people), and big businesses. The plan for job stimulation isn't at a corporate level (which has been decreasing jobs by sending them overseas where it is cheaper to produce), but at the small business/construction level.
I'm not even going to get into the healthcare part. I've become exhausted listening to arguments against reforming healthcare.
#47
Soliloquy
You can understand why it'd get that name.
Tactics of successful arguers involve:
1)Not paying attention to what the opposition has to say beyond finding points to refute.
2)Appealing to the audience's passions instead of the argument at hand.
3)Ignoring Gasbandit in his entirety.
Follow these three rules, and you'll be at the top of your game in no time!
Soliloquy
Well, it is a tax on the dead. After they die.Nice article, but it does gloss over a few things. It's not "Taxes all around". It's taxes on the wealthy, estate taxes (which is labeled as The Death Tax to scare people), and big businesses. The plan for job stimulation isn't at a corporate level (which has been decreasing jobs by sending them overseas where it is cheaper to produce), but at the small business/construction level.Chibibar;337386 said:ouch....... it is painful all around.GasBandit;337378 said:Here's an article going into details about the Obama 2011 budget's tax hikes.After reading a couple of links all I see is things like \\\\\"huge/massive tax increase\\\\\" but it never says where (I'm assuming: income tax?) and how much. Or maybe I just seem to miss it. Can anyone tell me, cause I've gotten a bit curious.
You can understand why it'd get that name.
But if you give up, they win! All arguments boil down to making the other person think that pushing their point of view isn't worth the effort.I'm not even going to get into the healthcare part. I've become exhausted listening to arguments against reforming healthcare.
Tactics of successful arguers involve:
1)Not paying attention to what the opposition has to say beyond finding points to refute.
2)Appealing to the audience's passions instead of the argument at hand.
3)Ignoring Gasbandit in his entirety.
Follow these three rules, and you'll be at the top of your game in no time!
#48
Krisken
You can understand why it'd get that name.
Tactics of successful arguers involve:
1)Not paying attention to what the opposition has to say beyond finding points to refute.
2)Appealing to the audience's passions instead of the argument at hand.
3)Ignoring Gasbandit in his entirety.
Follow these three rules, and you'll be at the top of your game in no time![/QUOTE]
Heh, ok, I laughed.
I'm not a successful arguer. I'm more interested in what is achievable than who can push their point the longest.
Krisken
Well, it is a tax on the dead. After they die.Nice article, but it does gloss over a few things. It's not "Taxes all around". It's taxes on the wealthy, estate taxes (which is labeled as The Death Tax to scare people), and big businesses. The plan for job stimulation isn't at a corporate level (which has been decreasing jobs by sending them overseas where it is cheaper to produce), but at the small business/construction level.Chibibar;337386 said:ouch....... it is painful all around.GasBandit;337378 said:Here's an article going into details about the Obama 2011 budget's tax hikes.After reading a couple of links all I see is things like \\\\\\"huge/massive tax increase\\\\\\" but it never says where (I'm assuming: income tax?) and how much. Or maybe I just seem to miss it. Can anyone tell me, cause I've gotten a bit curious.
You can understand why it'd get that name.
But if you give up, they win! All arguments boil down to making the other person think that pushing their point of view isn't worth the effort.I'm not even going to get into the healthcare part. I've become exhausted listening to arguments against reforming healthcare.
Tactics of successful arguers involve:
1)Not paying attention to what the opposition has to say beyond finding points to refute.
2)Appealing to the audience's passions instead of the argument at hand.
3)Ignoring Gasbandit in his entirety.
Follow these three rules, and you'll be at the top of your game in no time![/QUOTE]
Heh, ok, I laughed.
I'm not a successful arguer. I'm more interested in what is achievable than who can push their point the longest.
#49
GasBandit
GasBandit
You can NEVER ignore my ENTIRE entirety.
#50
Soliloquy
Wait, no -- FRIG!
Soliloquy
I've been successful in this thread so far.You can NEVER ignore my ENTIRE entirety.
Wait, no -- FRIG!
#51
Chibibar
argument means usually only 1 person wins. I like debate. There are plenty of times my views are changed due to people actually listing valid supporting statement/links (it is internet after all)
Chibibar
Heh. I will debateI'm not a successful arguer. I'm more interested in what is achievable than who can push their point the longest.
argument means usually only 1 person wins. I like debate. There are plenty of times my views are changed due to people actually listing valid supporting statement/links (it is internet after all)
#52
@Li3n
@Li3n
@GB
How about the fact that there's economic growth in most countries hit by the recession and there are still enough companies around to hire people some time in the future...
Sure, right now there's the possibility that stuff might get worse or better based on what decisions are made etc., but that's hardly proof either way until it actually happens.
And i believe the taxes stuff was covered well enough by other people.
How would you interpret it any other way?!
Sure, show me that they exist and that people are actually keen to make them happen besides saying it. What was that about tort (sp?) reform the republicans where talking about but when Obama said "sure, let's discuss it" they all went mum?!
---------- Post added at 01:31 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:26 PM ----------
Now see, there's a good argument...
Of course my rebuttal is that they'll never actually get that done because the lobbies will bury stuff as it shows up divide and conquer style (aka if it was possible it would have been ongoing already). But sure, that would be the best way to implement any reform in order to tackle any unforeseen problems.
How about the fact that there's economic growth in most countries hit by the recession and there are still enough companies around to hire people some time in the future...
Sure, right now there's the possibility that stuff might get worse or better based on what decisions are made etc., but that's hardly proof either way until it actually happens.
And i believe the taxes stuff was covered well enough by other people.
I've always taken that phrase to mean "too big to allow to fail."[/QUOTE]Just like not breaking up the "too big to fail" banks now that they can..
How would you interpret it any other way?!
Oh noes, it haz 1k pages, tl:dr so it must be bad.That alternative proposals exist? That it's possible to come up with another option to improve the health care industry besides the 1000+ pages of untested ideas that congress is putting together?
Sure, show me that they exist and that people are actually keen to make them happen besides saying it. What was that about tort (sp?) reform the republicans where talking about but when Obama said "sure, let's discuss it" they all went mum?!
---------- Post added at 01:31 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:26 PM ----------
That's my take on it too. Heck, I wouldn't necessarily mind a huge overhaul of the healthcare system if it was done slowly over time, so that all the unexpected kinks that will show up from the different proposals could be worked out as they show their heads, instead of piling on top of each other all at once, which is what would probably happen with the current proposal.
Of course, it doesn't look like the slow approach would work with what the democrats are planning, either. For instance, their plan for getting rid of the "preexisting conditions" thing would only work if they forced everyone to get healthcare, since otherwise it would have been too expensive of a change for insurance companies to handle. Same with pretty much everything else in the bill, from how I understand it.
Now see, there's a good argument...
Of course my rebuttal is that they'll never actually get that done because the lobbies will bury stuff as it shows up divide and conquer style (aka if it was possible it would have been ongoing already). But sure, that would be the best way to implement any reform in order to tackle any unforeseen problems.
#53
GasBandit
This is the same thing in reverse that was going on in 2005, when the MSM was constantly harping that we were in a recession and that 5% unemployment was a horrible tragedy. Now everything's in the shitter and we're in a recovery despite 10% unemployment (which is estimated to be closer to 20% in actuality, it's just some people have given up looking, and looking for work is how the unemployment rate is calculated).
GasBandit
No, I'm serious. I want to know who is telling you that we're in a recovery. I know the Obama administration keeps talking about how we're recovering, but we're not, and I've provided links to show it.@GB
How about the fact that there's economic growth in most countries hit by the recession and there are still enough companies around to hire people some time in the future...
This is the same thing in reverse that was going on in 2005, when the MSM was constantly harping that we were in a recession and that 5% unemployment was a horrible tragedy. Now everything's in the shitter and we're in a recovery despite 10% unemployment (which is estimated to be closer to 20% in actuality, it's just some people have given up looking, and looking for work is how the unemployment rate is calculated).
#54
Krisken
...the Government conducts a monthly sample survey called the Current Population Survey (CPS) to measure the extent of unemployment in the country.
I used a google search with the keywords "how unemployment rate is calculated" and it was the first link. Honestly, it wasn't hard to find.
Krisken
What?!?! You didn't even try to look that up, did you? The heading "Where do the statistics come from" is where you want to look.Now everything's in the shitter and we're in a recovery despite 10% unemployment (which is estimated to be closer to 20% in actuality, it's just some people have given up looking, and looking for work is how the unemployment rate is calculated).
...the Government conducts a monthly sample survey called the Current Population Survey (CPS) to measure the extent of unemployment in the country.
I used a google search with the keywords "how unemployment rate is calculated" and it was the first link. Honestly, it wasn't hard to find.
#55
Covar
Covar
h
...the Government conducts a monthly sample survey called the Current Population Survey (CPS) to measure the extent of unemployment in the country.
I used a google search with the keywords "how unemployment rate is calculated" and it was the first link. Honestly, it wasn't hard to find.[/QUOTE]
wow that's a lot of text for what my economics professor was able to explain to us, with 2 questions:
1) do you have a job?
2) if not are you looking for one?
simple enough, I remember when libs were complaining that the unemployment number was innacurate in the past 8 years because of people who "give up." Frankly if people no longer seek to be part of the workforce than they are really not relevant to the unemployment figure, which indicates the number of people in the workforce who are out of a job, not the number of people in the county who don't work (which would include students, stay at home parents, and retired citizens).
What?!?! You didn't even try to look that up, did you? The heading "Where do the statistics come from" is where you want to look.Now everything's in the shitter and we're in a recovery despite 10% unemployment (which is estimated to be closer to 20% in actuality, it's just some people have given up looking, and looking for work is how the unemployment rate is calculated).
...the Government conducts a monthly sample survey called the Current Population Survey (CPS) to measure the extent of unemployment in the country.
I used a google search with the keywords "how unemployment rate is calculated" and it was the first link. Honestly, it wasn't hard to find.[/QUOTE]
wow that's a lot of text for what my economics professor was able to explain to us, with 2 questions:
1) do you have a job?
2) if not are you looking for one?
simple enough, I remember when libs were complaining that the unemployment number was innacurate in the past 8 years because of people who "give up." Frankly if people no longer seek to be part of the workforce than they are really not relevant to the unemployment figure, which indicates the number of people in the workforce who are out of a job, not the number of people in the county who don't work (which would include students, stay at home parents, and retired citizens).
#56
Krisken
...the Government conducts a monthly sample survey called the Current Population Survey (CPS) to measure the extent of unemployment in the country.
I used a google search with the keywords "how unemployment rate is calculated" and it was the first link. Honestly, it wasn't hard to find.[/QUOTE]
wow that's a lot of text for what my economics professor was able to explain to us, with 2 questions:
1) do you have a job?
2) if not are you looking for one?
simple enough, I remember when libs were complaining that the unemployment number was innacurate in the past 8 years because of people who "give up." Frankly if people no longer seek to be part of the workforce than they are really not relevant to the unemployment figure, which indicates the number of people in the workforce who are out of a job, not the number of people in the county who don't work (which would include students, stay at home parents, and retired citizens).[/QUOTE]
Sorry, I read that as "I am too lazy to read 3 paragraphs, and now here comes a talking point".
Krisken
What?!?! You didn't even try to look that up, did you? The heading "Where do the statistics come from" is where you want to look.Now everything's in the shitter and we're in a recovery despite 10% unemployment (which is estimated to be closer to 20% in actuality, it's just some people have given up looking, and looking for work is how the unemployment rate is calculated).
...the Government conducts a monthly sample survey called the Current Population Survey (CPS) to measure the extent of unemployment in the country.
I used a google search with the keywords "how unemployment rate is calculated" and it was the first link. Honestly, it wasn't hard to find.[/QUOTE]
wow that's a lot of text for what my economics professor was able to explain to us, with 2 questions:
1) do you have a job?
2) if not are you looking for one?
simple enough, I remember when libs were complaining that the unemployment number was innacurate in the past 8 years because of people who "give up." Frankly if people no longer seek to be part of the workforce than they are really not relevant to the unemployment figure, which indicates the number of people in the workforce who are out of a job, not the number of people in the county who don't work (which would include students, stay at home parents, and retired citizens).[/QUOTE]
Sorry, I read that as "I am too lazy to read 3 paragraphs, and now here comes a talking point".
#57
Covar
...the Government conducts a monthly sample survey called the Current Population Survey (CPS) to measure the extent of unemployment in the country.
I used a google search with the keywords "how unemployment rate is calculated" and it was the first link. Honestly, it wasn't hard to find.[/QUOTE]
wow that's a lot of text for what my economics professor was able to explain to us, with 2 questions:
1) do you have a job?
2) if not are you looking for one?
simple enough, I remember when libs were complaining that the unemployment number was innacurate in the past 8 years because of people who "give up." Frankly if people no longer seek to be part of the workforce than they are really not relevant to the unemployment figure, which indicates the number of people in the workforce who are out of a job, not the number of people in the county who don't work (which would include students, stay at home parents, and retired citizens).[/QUOTE]
Sorry, I read that as "I am too lazy to read 3 paragraphs, and now here comes a talking point".[/QUOTE]
Damn close. I was sitting in class and wanted to keep half my attention on the professor. No talking point, just stating what I was taught about the subject, and my opinion on it.
Covar
What?!?! You didn't even try to look that up, did you? The heading "Where do the statistics come from" is where you want to look.Now everything's in the shitter and we're in a recovery despite 10% unemployment (which is estimated to be closer to 20% in actuality, it's just some people have given up looking, and looking for work is how the unemployment rate is calculated).
...the Government conducts a monthly sample survey called the Current Population Survey (CPS) to measure the extent of unemployment in the country.
I used a google search with the keywords "how unemployment rate is calculated" and it was the first link. Honestly, it wasn't hard to find.[/QUOTE]
wow that's a lot of text for what my economics professor was able to explain to us, with 2 questions:
1) do you have a job?
2) if not are you looking for one?
simple enough, I remember when libs were complaining that the unemployment number was innacurate in the past 8 years because of people who "give up." Frankly if people no longer seek to be part of the workforce than they are really not relevant to the unemployment figure, which indicates the number of people in the workforce who are out of a job, not the number of people in the county who don't work (which would include students, stay at home parents, and retired citizens).[/QUOTE]
Sorry, I read that as "I am too lazy to read 3 paragraphs, and now here comes a talking point".[/QUOTE]
Damn close. I was sitting in class and wanted to keep half my attention on the professor. No talking point, just stating what I was taught about the subject, and my opinion on it.
#58
@Li3n
[/QUOTE]
Stuff like this: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8471747.stm (and to a lesser extent this: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8497627.stm)
And countries like Germany, France and others reporting the same thing, a slow recovery etc.
I see no reason why the US would be in different straights but lying about it...
Also, note that the article mentions that it's a fragile recovery...
If you want i'm sure i can find more stuff when i have the time and i'm not at work (man does the internet stink at work).
@Li3n
No, I'm serious. I want to know who is telling you that we're in a recovery. I know the Obama administration keeps talking about how we're recovering, but we're not, and I've provided links to show it.@GB
How about the fact that there's economic growth in most countries hit by the recession and there are still enough companies around to hire people some time in the future...
[/QUOTE]
Stuff like this: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8471747.stm (and to a lesser extent this: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8497627.stm)
And countries like Germany, France and others reporting the same thing, a slow recovery etc.
I see no reason why the US would be in different straights but lying about it...
Also, note that the article mentions that it's a fragile recovery...
If you want i'm sure i can find more stuff when i have the time and i'm not at work (man does the internet stink at work).
#59
Kitty Sinatra
Kitty Sinatra
Canada's Prime Minister is calling it a recovery, too, but there's no way Gas will listen to him since he's also promoting regulating the world's banking industry . . . All hail glorious blue leader of Soviet Canuckistan
#60
GasBandit
[/QUOTE]
Stuff like this: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8471747.stm (and to a lesser extent this: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8497627.stm)
And countries like Germany, France and others reporting the same thing, a slow recovery etc.
I see no reason why the US would be in different straights but lying about it...
Also, note that the article mentions that it's a fragile recovery...
If you want i'm sure i can find more stuff when i have the time and i'm not at work (man does the internet stink at work).[/QUOTE]
FTA:
"The World Bank says global economic recovery is underway. However, it warns the recovery is fragile and could fizzle out later this year as stimulus measures are wound down."
In other words, IF we keep spending like we have been, we'll artificially inflate growth by the same percentage this year as it went down last year (according to what he said in the video). Except we can't and won't keep spending at that level because it's breaking us. Also, perhaps Europe is doing OK for right now, but what will happen to them when the US drops into the second dip? It was the US market crash that yanked down everybody else, and the problem is not fixed here yet - our politicians haven't learned anything.
GasBandit
No, I'm serious. I want to know who is telling you that we're in a recovery. I know the Obama administration keeps talking about how we're recovering, but we're not, and I've provided links to show it.@GB
How about the fact that there's economic growth in most countries hit by the recession and there are still enough companies around to hire people some time in the future...
[/QUOTE]
Stuff like this: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8471747.stm (and to a lesser extent this: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8497627.stm)
And countries like Germany, France and others reporting the same thing, a slow recovery etc.
I see no reason why the US would be in different straights but lying about it...
Also, note that the article mentions that it's a fragile recovery...
If you want i'm sure i can find more stuff when i have the time and i'm not at work (man does the internet stink at work).[/QUOTE]
FTA:
"The World Bank says global economic recovery is underway. However, it warns the recovery is fragile and could fizzle out later this year as stimulus measures are wound down."
In other words, IF we keep spending like we have been, we'll artificially inflate growth by the same percentage this year as it went down last year (according to what he said in the video). Except we can't and won't keep spending at that level because it's breaking us. Also, perhaps Europe is doing OK for right now, but what will happen to them when the US drops into the second dip? It was the US market crash that yanked down everybody else, and the problem is not fixed here yet - our politicians haven't learned anything.
#61
Chibibar
[/QUOTE]
Stuff like this: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8471747.stm (and to a lesser extent this: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8497627.stm)
And countries like Germany, France and others reporting the same thing, a slow recovery etc.
I see no reason why the US would be in different straights but lying about it...
Also, note that the article mentions that it's a fragile recovery...
If you want i'm sure i can find more stuff when i have the time and i'm not at work (man does the internet stink at work).[/QUOTE]
I think the U.S. might "fib" on it since the world market is on the US dollar, or at least one of the majors.
Chibibar
No, I'm serious. I want to know who is telling you that we're in a recovery. I know the Obama administration keeps talking about how we're recovering, but we're not, and I've provided links to show it.@GB
How about the fact that there's economic growth in most countries hit by the recession and there are still enough companies around to hire people some time in the future...
[/QUOTE]
Stuff like this: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8471747.stm (and to a lesser extent this: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8497627.stm)
And countries like Germany, France and others reporting the same thing, a slow recovery etc.
I see no reason why the US would be in different straights but lying about it...
Also, note that the article mentions that it's a fragile recovery...
If you want i'm sure i can find more stuff when i have the time and i'm not at work (man does the internet stink at work).[/QUOTE]
I think the U.S. might "fib" on it since the world market is on the US dollar, or at least one of the majors.
#62
@Li3n
[/QUOTE]
Stuff like this: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8471747.stm (and to a lesser extent this: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8497627.stm)
And countries like Germany, France and others reporting the same thing, a slow recovery etc.
I see no reason why the US would be in different straights but lying about it...
Also, note that the article mentions that it's a fragile recovery...
If you want i'm sure i can find more stuff when i have the time and i'm not at work (man does the internet stink at work).[/QUOTE]
FTA:
"The World Bank says global economic recovery is underway. However, it warns the recovery is fragile and could fizzle out later this year as stimulus measuresare wound down."
In other words, IF we keep spending like we have been, we'll artificially inflate growth by the same percentage this year as it went down last year (according to what he said in the video). Except we can't and won't keep spending at that level because it's breaking us. Also, perhaps Europe is doing OK for right now, but what will happen to them when the US drops into the second dip? It was the US market crash that yanked down everybody else, and the problem is not fixed here yet - our politicians haven't learned anything.[/QUOTE]
The word you're looking for is IF.
He says that the growth we're seeing now is because of the money spent, and that the next question is if without the money will there still be growth (but slower because there's no more, or less, stimulus money) or will it go down into the negative again.
@Li3n
No, I'm serious. I want to know who is telling you that we're in a recovery. I know the Obama administration keeps talking about how we're recovering, but we're not, and I've provided links to show it.@GB
How about the fact that there's economic growth in most countries hit by the recession and there are still enough companies around to hire people some time in the future...
[/QUOTE]
Stuff like this: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8471747.stm (and to a lesser extent this: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8497627.stm)
And countries like Germany, France and others reporting the same thing, a slow recovery etc.
I see no reason why the US would be in different straights but lying about it...
Also, note that the article mentions that it's a fragile recovery...
If you want i'm sure i can find more stuff when i have the time and i'm not at work (man does the internet stink at work).[/QUOTE]
FTA:
"The World Bank says global economic recovery is underway. However, it warns the recovery is fragile and could fizzle out later this year as stimulus measuresare wound down."
In other words, IF we keep spending like we have been, we'll artificially inflate growth by the same percentage this year as it went down last year (according to what he said in the video). Except we can't and won't keep spending at that level because it's breaking us. Also, perhaps Europe is doing OK for right now, but what will happen to them when the US drops into the second dip? It was the US market crash that yanked down everybody else, and the problem is not fixed here yet - our politicians haven't learned anything.[/QUOTE]
The word you're looking for is IF.
He says that the growth we're seeing now is because of the money spent, and that the next question is if without the money will there still be growth (but slower because there's no more, or less, stimulus money) or will it go down into the negative again.
Let's not underestimate the level of stupidity on everyone's part on investing/emulating into all those screwy things the US banks where doing...It was the US market crash that yanked down everybody else, and the problem is not fixed here yet - our politicians haven't learned anything.
#63
GasBandit
GasBandit
I don't have data for the European countries, but economists on both sides of the aisle here in America agree that the recent growth of our GDP is entirely artificial, owing less to stimulus money and more to how GDP is calculated. Much like kicking the kids with the worst grades out of a school artificially increases test scores, so has our GDP gone up 5% from the least productive workers being fired. The takehome here is that we're nowhere NEAR out of the woods, and at least in America, businesses still are too busy trying to clench their cheeks together in the face of Obama's ever-increasing hostility toward the private sector to rehire or expand. Plus, we just raised our debt ceiling over 14 trillion dollars. This is not a formula for recovery.The word you're looking for is IF.
He says that the growth we're seeing now is because of the money spent, and that the next question is if without the money will there still be growth (but slower because there's no more, or less, stimulus money) or will it go down into the negative again.
That's just it... a large part of the world economy is investing in the US economy, even now, after what should have been a giant wake-up call. But I guess political myopia isn't limited to one culture.Let's not underestimate the level of stupidity on everyone's part on investing/emulating into all those screwy things the US banks where doing...It was the US market crash that yanked down everybody else, and the problem is not fixed here yet - our politicians haven't learned anything.
#64
Chazwozel
.
Chazwozel
I don't have data for the European countries, but economists on both sides of the aisle here in America agree that the recent growth of our GDP is entirely artificial, owing less to stimulus money and more to how GDP is calculated. Much like kicking the kids with the worst grades out of a school artificially increases test scores, so has our GDP gone up 5% from the least productive workers being fired. The takehome here is that we're nowhere NEAR out of the woods, and at least in America, businesses still are too busy trying to clench their cheeks together in the face of Obama's ever-increasing hostility toward the private sector to rehire or expand. Plus, we just raised our debt ceiling over 14 trillion dollars. This is not a formula for recovery.The word you're looking for is IF.
He says that the growth we're seeing now is because of the money spent, and that the next question is if without the money will there still be growth (but slower because there's no more, or less, stimulus money) or will it go down into the negative again.
That's just it... a large part of the world economy is investing in the US economy, even now, after what should have been a giant wake-up call. But I guess political myopia isn't limited to one culture.[/QUOTE]Let's not underestimate the level of stupidity on everyone's part on investing/emulating into all those screwy things the US banks where doing...It was the US market crash that yanked down everybody else, and the problem is not fixed here yet - our politicians haven't learned anything.
#65
@Li3n
Ok, in what way is your GDP calculated that it manages to ignore people that where fired?!
You sure it's not just that getting rid of those people made the businesses more efficient, which lead to better relative performances, but also a jobless recovery... and once you have all those consumers without money to buy stuff the modern economic system is in trouble, which could easily lead to a double dip, as no customers, no sales...
So it's more like an unsustainable growth then a fake one...
But like i said, there are no guarantees, it could go both ways, no matter how the GDP is calculated...
And talking about Europe: (note that these are old)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8198766.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8199970.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8479639.stm
But i was talking about the actual actions then just being invested in the US market (Toyota is invested in the US, but it wasn't as affected as your car companies because it wasn't run the same way GM was, even if that's not a banking thing).
@Li3n
I don't have data for the European countries, but economists on both sides of the aisle here in America agree that the recent growth of our GDP is entirely artificial, owing less to stimulus money and more to how GDP is calculated. Much like kicking the kids with the worst grades out of a school artificially increases test scores, so has our GDP gone up 5% from the least productive workers being fired. The takehome here is that we're nowhere NEAR out of the woods, and at least in America, businesses still are too busy trying to clench their cheeks together in the face of Obama's ever-increasing hostility toward the private sector to rehire or expand. Plus, we just raised our debt ceiling over 14 trillion dollars. This is not a formula for recovery.[/QUOTE]The word you're looking for is IF.
He says that the growth we're seeing now is because of the money spent, and that the next question is if without the money will there still be growth (but slower because there's no more, or less, stimulus money) or will it go down into the negative again.
Ok, in what way is your GDP calculated that it manages to ignore people that where fired?!
You sure it's not just that getting rid of those people made the businesses more efficient, which lead to better relative performances, but also a jobless recovery... and once you have all those consumers without money to buy stuff the modern economic system is in trouble, which could easily lead to a double dip, as no customers, no sales...
So it's more like an unsustainable growth then a fake one...
But like i said, there are no guarantees, it could go both ways, no matter how the GDP is calculated...
And talking about Europe: (note that these are old)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8198766.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8199970.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8479639.stm
You do realise that you guys would be even worse off without the rest of the world investing in you, right?That's just it... a large part of the world economy is investing in the US economy, even now, after what should have been a giant wake-up call. But I guess political myopia isn't limited to one culture.Let's not underestimate the level of stupidity on everyone's part on investing/emulating into all those screwy things the US banks where doing...It was the US market crash that yanked down everybody else, and the problem is not fixed here yet - our politicians haven't learned anything.
But i was talking about the actual actions then just being invested in the US market (Toyota is invested in the US, but it wasn't as affected as your car companies because it wasn't run the same way GM was, even if that's not a banking thing).
#66
GasBandit
"Productivity is not really increasing. It only seems like it's increasing because employers used the recession as an excuse to fire everyone on the payroll who was useless. With fewer employees on the payroll and with sales up, productivity artificially appears to be up. However, Rosenberg (and Mauldin) are correct: This is an artificial increase. And in order for inventories to continue to be rebuilt employees will have to be rehired, because productivity is simply not this good."
GasBandit
Well, that's not exactly what is happening. Because the least productive workers are fired first, overall productivity looks like it is going up because the ratio of production to expenses goes up, even though production itself may not be going up at all. Here's how Economist James Altucher puts it:Ok, in what way is your GDP calculated that it manages to ignore people that where fired?!
"Productivity is not really increasing. It only seems like it's increasing because employers used the recession as an excuse to fire everyone on the payroll who was useless. With fewer employees on the payroll and with sales up, productivity artificially appears to be up. However, Rosenberg (and Mauldin) are correct: This is an artificial increase. And in order for inventories to continue to be rebuilt employees will have to be rehired, because productivity is simply not this good."
You just reasoned your way around to agreeing with me. Congratulations.You sure it's not just that getting rid of those people made the businesses more efficient, which lead to better relative performances, but also a jobless recovery... and once you have all those consumers without money to buy stuff the modern economic system is in trouble, which could easily lead to a double dip, as no customers, no sales...
Of course. My point was not that I wanted other countries to stop investing, I was merely pointing out that the economy of the world is invested in the economy of the United States, which is most likely about to screw everybody again.You do realise that you guys would be even worse off without the rest of the world investing in you, right?
#67
Soliloquy
Soliloquy
You know, how about we all just take bets and shut up about it.
We make a bet about how some aspect of the economy will have fared by, say, July of this year. The winners will be treated to free Halforums mugs by the losers.
Then, when an argument about the economy comes up in the future, the winners can just show a picture of themselves with the mug, and we will all know that we're standing in the presence of a superior economic forecaster.
We make a bet about how some aspect of the economy will have fared by, say, July of this year. The winners will be treated to free Halforums mugs by the losers.
Then, when an argument about the economy comes up in the future, the winners can just show a picture of themselves with the mug, and we will all know that we're standing in the presence of a superior economic forecaster.
#68
GasBandit
But this is the nefarious thing - most of the spending outlined for us is spread over the next 10 years. It's the old credit fallacy. "I'd gladly pay you tuesday." The main point of contention is not about what we do that will affect July... it's about what we do that will affect 2020.
GasBandit
How we're doing in july will depend entirely upon what actions are taken between now and then, and how they make private sector business owners feel about the way the future is going to work out. If democrats decide, as they have mumbled about doing, to extend the bush tax cuts, and if they decide to pare back on Obama's obscenely bloated 2011 budget, we may see some modest improvements. If they instead decide to keep beating the health care dead horse and then double down by throwing cap and trade into the mix, things may look less rosy.You know, how about we all just take bets and shut up about it.
We make a bet about how some aspect of the economy will have fared by, say, July of this year. The winners will be treated to free Halforums mugs by the losers.
Then, when an argument about the economy comes up in the future, the winners can just show a picture of themselves with the mug, and we will all know that we're standing in the presence of a superior economic forecaster.
But this is the nefarious thing - most of the spending outlined for us is spread over the next 10 years. It's the old credit fallacy. "I'd gladly pay you tuesday." The main point of contention is not about what we do that will affect July... it's about what we do that will affect 2020.
#69
@Li3n
What you're saying is that profits are up because costs are down... which isn't really artificial, but it is why it's a jobless recovery. The problem comes from all those consumers with little money to spend because they have no jobs...
@Li3n
Fewer employees would affect profits, not productivity... and sales being up can't be at the base of an artificial increase...Well, that's not exactly what is happening. Because the least productive workers are fired first, overall productivity looks like it is going up because the ratio of production to expenses goes up, even though production itself may not be going up at all. Here's how Economist James Altucher puts it:Ok, in what way is your GDP calculated that it manages to ignore people that where fired?!
"Productivity is not really increasing. It only seems like it's increasing because employers used the recession as an excuse to fire everyone on the payroll who was useless. With fewer employees on the payroll and with sales up, productivity artificially appears to be up. However, Rosenberg (and Mauldin) are correct: This is an artificial increase. And in order for inventories to continue to be rebuilt employees will have to be rehired, because productivity is simply not this good."
What you're saying is that profits are up because costs are down... which isn't really artificial, but it is why it's a jobless recovery. The problem comes from all those consumers with little money to spend because they have no jobs...
No, i was saying your conclusions might be correct, but the logic you used is flawed... or at least badly worded...You just reasoned your way around to agreeing with me. Congratulations.
That's your fault, Marshall plan and all... but it's not that cut and dry: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_1980s_recessionOf course. My point was not that I wanted other countries to stop investing, I was merely pointing out that the economy of the world is invested in the economy of the United States, which is most likely about to screw everybody again.
#70
Covar
Covar
actually it would affect productivity like Gas said. if you cut the dead weight, you have less workers giving the same output as before, this looks like "increased" productivity.
#71
@Li3n
@Li3n
But that would not actually affect the GDP as productivity would be the same.
And anyway, the GDP is about the money more then the actual output of goods...
And anyway, the GDP is about the money more then the actual output of goods...
#72
GasBandit
GasBandit
Every economist I've linked and/or quoted, plus others I haven't, say you're wrong. Can you find me some who say you're right?But that would not actually affect the GDP as productivity would be the same.
#73
Chibibar
I believe GB is right.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_domestic_product
The basic formula for GDP
GDP = private consumption + gross investment + government spending + (exports − imports), or
GDP = C + Inv + G + \left ( eX - iM \right )
right now firing people would increase Gross investment. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Investment#Economics basically (really basic for a guy like me who has only little economic course requirement) that profit is "up" since investment to profit is higher with lower work force.
Also government spending is higher (bail out) while private consumption is lower it "semi" lowers it BUT the other two area (gross investment and government spending) increase a whole lot. So GDP would be higher (in GB defense illusion of 5% higher)
---------- Post added at 11:35 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:24 AM ----------
here is an interesting read on U.S. debt and China's owning most of it (good percentage)
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/china_debt_bomb_onc23nzJdiQR7gTLkrwSpL
Chibibar
Every economist I've linked and/or quoted, plus others I haven't, say you're wrong. Can you find me some who say you're right?[/QUOTE]But that would not actually affect the GDP as productivity would be the same.
I believe GB is right.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_domestic_product
The basic formula for GDP
GDP = private consumption + gross investment + government spending + (exports − imports), or
GDP = C + Inv + G + \left ( eX - iM \right )
right now firing people would increase Gross investment. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Investment#Economics basically (really basic for a guy like me who has only little economic course requirement) that profit is "up" since investment to profit is higher with lower work force.
Also government spending is higher (bail out) while private consumption is lower it "semi" lowers it BUT the other two area (gross investment and government spending) increase a whole lot. So GDP would be higher (in GB defense illusion of 5% higher)
---------- Post added at 11:35 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:24 AM ----------
here is an interesting read on U.S. debt and China's owning most of it (good percentage)
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/china_debt_bomb_onc23nzJdiQR7gTLkrwSpL
#74
@Li3n
Like i said, what GB said is possible, but the opposite is just as possible too, he's just overemphasising the possible outcome he likes.
Everything else was me trying to explain that he's got some terms mixed up.
@Li3n
Not productivity... they're 2 different things...right now firing people would increase Gross investment. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Investment#Economics basically (really basic for a guy like me who has only little economic course requirement) that profit is \"up\" since investment to profit is higher with lower work force.
Like i said, what GB said is possible, but the opposite is just as possible too, he's just overemphasising the possible outcome he likes.
Everything else was me trying to explain that he's got some terms mixed up.
#75
GasBandit
Like i said, what GB said is possible, but the opposite is just as possible too, he's just overemphasising the possible outcome he likes.
Everything else was me trying to explain that he's got some terms mixed up.[/QUOTE]
You can argue that GDP isn't a true measure of actual productivity. That's a valid assertion. What I was saying (along with multiple economists), is that the increase in productivity as represented by the GDP (which is what the left is trumpeting here as a sign of recovery) is illusory because of the reduction in indolent employment.
GasBandit
Not productivity... they're 2 different things...right now firing people would increase Gross investment. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Investment#Economics basically (really basic for a guy like me who has only little economic course requirement) that profit is \\"up\\" since investment to profit is higher with lower work force.
Like i said, what GB said is possible, but the opposite is just as possible too, he's just overemphasising the possible outcome he likes.
Everything else was me trying to explain that he's got some terms mixed up.[/QUOTE]
You can argue that GDP isn't a true measure of actual productivity. That's a valid assertion. What I was saying (along with multiple economists), is that the increase in productivity as represented by the GDP (which is what the left is trumpeting here as a sign of recovery) is illusory because of the reduction in indolent employment.
#76
@Li3n
@Li3n
Productivity means they're making more stuff, with or without an increase in profit (you can easily have a decrease depending on your strategy), and i have no idea what definition of it you're using that it relies on how many people are in the firm in the way you think. Either you're confusing it with profit (which is "income - costs" and would go up if there are less people to pay) or they're using a very weird way to calculate the GDP over there.
#77
GasBandit
GasBandit
Pretty much this.... or they're using a very weird way to calculate the GDP over there.
#78
Chibibar
It is a pretty weird formula if you are just looking at productivity (at least from what we talk about it so far) but the GDP is what I post above.
Now li3n, you are right about if I produce 400 units @2$ a unit that cost me 800$, but if I fire 50% of my people and STILL produce the same amount 400 unit @1$ (half the cost of labor for simplicity) then my cost is 400$. in your term, productivity didn't increase, but for some economist it "did" for some weird reason since it cost half as much and thus more profit (sold at the same price lets say 5$) so it is 2000$ - 800$ = 1200$ profit (well for simplicity) vs 2000 - 400 = 1600$ profit.
I am guessing they are using profit as part of productivity. I gotta find that formula.
edit: ahhh... (I love wiki but there are other site with more reliable but it give some basic truth sometimes)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Productivity
Productivity DOES include labor per unit. So if you fire all your "dead beats" and still produce the same, then productivity DOES go up
Chibibar
Pretty much this.[/QUOTE]... or they're using a very weird way to calculate the GDP over there.
It is a pretty weird formula if you are just looking at productivity (at least from what we talk about it so far) but the GDP is what I post above.
Now li3n, you are right about if I produce 400 units @2$ a unit that cost me 800$, but if I fire 50% of my people and STILL produce the same amount 400 unit @1$ (half the cost of labor for simplicity) then my cost is 400$. in your term, productivity didn't increase, but for some economist it "did" for some weird reason since it cost half as much and thus more profit (sold at the same price lets say 5$) so it is 2000$ - 800$ = 1200$ profit (well for simplicity) vs 2000 - 400 = 1600$ profit.
I am guessing they are using profit as part of productivity. I gotta find that formula.
edit: ahhh... (I love wiki but there are other site with more reliable but it give some basic truth sometimes)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Productivity
Productivity DOES include labor per unit. So if you fire all your "dead beats" and still produce the same, then productivity DOES go up
#79
@Li3n
@Li3n
But labour per employee should be about the people actually doing the producing instead of the bosses secretary and stuff... unless they're taking goods produced by the whole economy over # of ppl employed overall, which only works if they include services somehow...
Assuming your assertion is right, the GDP increased because of other factors too: http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/national/gdp/gdpnewsrelease.htm so it's not as "fake" as you make it out to be.
Still, as everyone says, we're not out of the woods yet (or in my case at all, we always do stuff backward here, we started the recession while everyone else was starting the recovery) and stuff could still go back down, but that doesn't mean we're not in recovery right now.
And getting rid of people that where slower or whatever and still maintaining the same overall productivity (not even increasing it) is a real thing and they even pay people to do that.
Assuming your assertion is right, the GDP increased because of other factors too: http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/national/gdp/gdpnewsrelease.htm so it's not as "fake" as you make it out to be.
Still, as everyone says, we're not out of the woods yet (or in my case at all, we always do stuff backward here, we started the recession while everyone else was starting the recovery) and stuff could still go back down, but that doesn't mean we're not in recovery right now.
That's per unit of input, which can be different things (like the number of hours spent or the resources used etc.)Productivity DOES include labor per unit.
And getting rid of people that where slower or whatever and still maintaining the same overall productivity (not even increasing it) is a real thing and they even pay people to do that.
#80
Adammon
If I paid you as a private employer to move one piece of paper from one side of your desk to another all day, that wouldn't count towards GDP. If I was the government and I paid you to do the exact same thing, it would count towards GDP.
It's one of the reasons during a stimulus period that GDP doesn't really indicate how well an economy is doing.
Adammon
GDP doesn't include the bosses secretary work either.But labour per employee should be about the people actually doing the producing instead of the bosses secretary and stuff... unless they're taking goods produced by the whole economy over # of ppl employed overall, which only works if they include services somehow...
If I paid you as a private employer to move one piece of paper from one side of your desk to another all day, that wouldn't count towards GDP. If I was the government and I paid you to do the exact same thing, it would count towards GDP.
It's one of the reasons during a stimulus period that GDP doesn't really indicate how well an economy is doing.
#81
Chibibar
If I paid you as a private employer to move one piece of paper from one side of your desk to another all day, that wouldn't count towards GDP. If I was the government and I paid you to do the exact same thing, it would count towards GDP.
It's one of the reasons during a stimulus period that GDP doesn't really indicate how well an economy is doing.[/QUOTE]
cause that is part of the government spending right? (at least part of that formula)
Chibibar
GDP doesn't include the bosses secretary work either.But labour per employee should be about the people actually doing the producing instead of the bosses secretary and stuff... unless they're taking goods produced by the whole economy over # of ppl employed overall, which only works if they include services somehow...
If I paid you as a private employer to move one piece of paper from one side of your desk to another all day, that wouldn't count towards GDP. If I was the government and I paid you to do the exact same thing, it would count towards GDP.
It's one of the reasons during a stimulus period that GDP doesn't really indicate how well an economy is doing.[/QUOTE]
cause that is part of the government spending right? (at least part of that formula)
#82
Adammon
If I paid you as a private employer to move one piece of paper from one side of your desk to another all day, that wouldn't count towards GDP. If I was the government and I paid you to do the exact same thing, it would count towards GDP.
It's one of the reasons during a stimulus period that GDP doesn't really indicate how well an economy is doing.[/QUOTE]
cause that is part of the government spending right? (at least part of that formula)[/QUOTE]
That's the G in CIGX
Adammon
GDP doesn't include the bosses secretary work either.But labour per employee should be about the people actually doing the producing instead of the bosses secretary and stuff... unless they're taking goods produced by the whole economy over # of ppl employed overall, which only works if they include services somehow...
If I paid you as a private employer to move one piece of paper from one side of your desk to another all day, that wouldn't count towards GDP. If I was the government and I paid you to do the exact same thing, it would count towards GDP.
It's one of the reasons during a stimulus period that GDP doesn't really indicate how well an economy is doing.[/QUOTE]
cause that is part of the government spending right? (at least part of that formula)[/QUOTE]
That's the G in CIGX
#83
@Li3n
If I paid you as a private employer to move one piece of paper from one side of your desk to another all day, that wouldn't count towards GDP. If I was the government and I paid you to do the exact same thing, it would count towards GDP.
It's one of the reasons during a stimulus period that GDP doesn't really indicate how well an economy is doing.[/QUOTE]
But none of those things impact the economy in a negative way... or inflate the GDP artificially.
No actual indicator is a perfect mirror of the actual state of the economy, but as long as it's close enough it's fine.
The recovery being or not sustainable isn't something that's really tied to the GDP anyhow.
But let's go back to the original thing, consumer spending is also up GB (see link in last post), and i doubt that people started firing family members...
@Li3n
GDP doesn't include the bosses secretary work either.But labour per employee should be about the people actually doing the producing instead of the bosses secretary and stuff... unless they're taking goods produced by the whole economy over # of ppl employed overall, which only works if they include services somehow...
If I paid you as a private employer to move one piece of paper from one side of your desk to another all day, that wouldn't count towards GDP. If I was the government and I paid you to do the exact same thing, it would count towards GDP.
It's one of the reasons during a stimulus period that GDP doesn't really indicate how well an economy is doing.[/QUOTE]
But none of those things impact the economy in a negative way... or inflate the GDP artificially.
No actual indicator is a perfect mirror of the actual state of the economy, but as long as it's close enough it's fine.
The recovery being or not sustainable isn't something that's really tied to the GDP anyhow.
But let's go back to the original thing, consumer spending is also up GB (see link in last post), and i doubt that people started firing family members...