Herman Cain: Liberals Want to Destroy America

[Revoltingest]

I admit I am a little thin on thin on the subject. I would think that a booming economy would inspire a great deal industry....

Certainly, industry does better in a booming economy, but regulatory changes (more costly here, less restrictive abroad) have altered incentives
about where to manufacture things. Just yesterday on NPR, I heard that we no longer manufacture antibiotics in the US. Whether this is entirely
true or not, we've seen devastating losses of pharm companies here, especially in MI....
Drug Making’s Move Abroad Stirs Concerns - NYTimes.com
MI gov't was hostile to the industry (eg, Pfizer), so they pulled up & left. The FDA regulates drugs made overseas too, but not to the extent of
domestic industry. This confers a competitive advantage to those who leave the country.

I was an engineer in many different industries, heavy machinery, aerospace, medical, transportation & a little civil engineering. I saw first hand
how increasing regulation was driving business away without conferring enuf tangible benefit to consumers or workers.

...., but once the financial boom faded, so did most of that industry. Not saying that it wasn't a factor, but I don't think it was the largest one during the 80s.

I didn't see any fading financial boom in the 90s. The s*** hit the fan in 2001.

 

[Magic Man]

Huh? How did I make your point for you. I have no idea how your response here is cogent. The 80's economic boom was the result of lowered taxes (like the Bush era) and trickle down that you say "never works". The debt that increased at the time wasn't crippling as it is today, and the economy would have been far better if it didn't get there. There was also a major crash in the 80's just like in 2007-2009. Do you know recent history?

Neither of those eras' booms were due to lowered taxes and trickle-down economics. The boom in under Bush was mainly due to the housing boom, which, of course, then destroyed the economy. But in both cases, record debt was run up. Reagan tripled the debt in 8 years. Bush doubled it. Even if lowered taxes caused a boom (which they didn't), we still can't afford a booming economy if it means running up trillions of dollars in debt.

By the way, I'm still waiting to continue this part of the conversation, when you're ready:

Let's start with this. You show me that there was an $800 billion increase in revenue first, and we'll go from there.

Also, Revolting, you didn't respond to:

The evidence is your source. The one line is gives is adjusted for inflation. You said it yourself. Adjusted for inflation (meaning all in current dollars), the median price of a house has gone from $140,000 in 1970 to $175,000 today. That means, after you factor in inflation, it's still gone up another $35,000.

So I guess you just soaked in the information, and will keep it in mind for the future, right?

 

[Falvlun]

The FDA regulates drugs made overseas too, but not to the extent of domestic industry. This confers a competitive advantage to those who leave the country.

That is a problem. If we require things of companies making things on our shores, then we should require them of products being shipped from other countries. Fair is fair.

 

[Revoltingest]

That is a problem. If we require things of companies making things on our shores, then we should require them of products being shipped from other countries. Fair is fair.

Sounds reasonable to me.

 

[Shermana]

Neither of those eras' booms were due to lowered taxes and trickle-down economics. The boom in under Bush was mainly due to the housing boom, which, of course, then destroyed the economy. But in both cases, record debt was run up. Reagan tripled the debt in 8 years. Bush doubled it. Even if lowered taxes caused a boom (which they didn't), we still can't afford a booming economy if it means running up trillions of dollars in debt.

So please explain what caused the 80's economic boom.

By the way, I'm still waiting to continue this part of the conversation, when you're ready:

I see my first link you either ignored or simply didn't believe.Try this one:
http://www.letterfromthecapitol.com/letterfromthecapitol/2011/05/tall-tax-tales.html

In other words, tax revenues rose by more than $800 billion in just four years by cutting tax rates and boosting economic growth that pushed the Dow to a record 14,164 points on Oct. 9, 2007.

 

[strikeviperMKII]

So please explain what caused the 80's economic boom.

[FONT=Times,Times New Roman]Method to the Merger Madness[/FONT][FONT=Times,Times New Roman]
[/FONT]

 

[Kathryn]

Some areas of the country have managed to keep inflation and housing costs at about the same pace. The figures presented are a national average and are skewered by some ridiculous markets - like California, and Florida, and the Northeast.

I'm just sayin'.

 

[Magic Man]

So please explain what caused the 80's economic boom.

Debunking the Reagan Myth

I see my first link you either ignored or simply didn't believe.Try this one:
Tall TAX Tales: The Bush Tax Cut Fable - LFTC - Letter From The Capitol

I didn't ignore anything. I'm still waiting for an explanation of why you think the tax cuts are what caused that. You do realize that those increases in revenue correspond exactly to the housing bubble, right?

 

[Revoltingest]

It's interesting how the vaunted St Krugman's NYT pieces seldom involve any of that keen Nobel-Prize-worthy analysis.
We get mainly value judgements, personal opinion, half-truths & partisan cheer-leading. I read the article looking for
something of substance & found nothing. Tis like swatting at smoke.

Note: I'm not dismissing him as a source of opinion & info. If ever he comes up with something supportable & insightful,
I'll give him a read. Perhaps the best economists are the ones operating in obscurity....they must rely on a cogent &
convincing argument rather than trading on name recognition while resting upon their laurels.

 

[Magic Man]

It's interesting how the vaunted St Krugman's NYT pieces seldom involve any of that keen Nobel-Prize-worthy analysis.
We get mainly value judgements, personal opinion, half-truths & partisan cheer-leading. I read the article looking for
something of substance & found nothing. Tis like swatting at smoke.

Note: I'm not dismissing him as a source of opinion & info. If ever he comes up with something supportable & insightful,
I'll give him a read. Perhaps the best economists are the ones operating in obscurity....they must rely on a cogent &
convincing argument rather than trading on name recognition while resting upon their laurels.

Your biased opinion is duly noted.

 

[Revoltingest]

Your biased opinion...

Guilty as charged.

 

[Copernicus]

Krugman isn't the only economist, but many of the issues he raises in those opinion pieces are based on uncontroversial claims--e.g. that demand is an important driver in creating jobs. In a recession, you do not implement austerity measures and expect job growth. The government either borrows and spends, or it slides deeper into recession. Deficits are not what matters in a situation like ours. Measures that increase demand in the marketplace are what matter. Some tax increases can be implemented without having the effect of depressing demand--e.g. progressive tax hikes on higher levels of income.

 

[strikeviperMKII]

Krugman isn't the only economist, but many of the issues he raises in those opinion pieces are based on uncontroversial claims--e.g. that demand is an important driver in creating jobs. In a recession, you do not implement austerity measures and expect job growth. The government either borrows and spends, or it slides deeper into recession. Deficits are not what matters in a situation like ours. Measures that increase demand in the marketplace are what matter. Some tax increases can be implemented without having the effect of depressing demand--e.g. progressive tax hikes on higher levels of income.

:clap

 

[Falvlun]

Krugman isn't the only economist, but many of the issues he raises in those opinion pieces are based on uncontroversial claims--e.g. that demand is an important driver in creating jobs. In a recession, you do not implement austerity measures and expect job growth. The government either borrows and spends, or it slides deeper into recession. Deficits are not what matters in a situation like ours. Measures that increase demand in the marketplace are what matter. Some tax increases can be implemented without having the effect of depressing demand--e.g. progressive tax hikes on higher levels of income.

It seems to me that not only lack of demand, but uncertainty about the future, is driving the current recession. People with money to invest just don't know which way the wind is blowing, re regulations, strength of the dollar, European markets, etc, and so aren't doing anything. Could not a high deficit fuel that uncertainty? Also, how do we address that uncertainty? (I do believe a lot of it is manufactured by the bickering of Congress, but barring declaring a dictatorship, I don't see that changing anytime soon...)

 

[Copernicus]

It seems to me that not only lack of demand, but uncertainty about the future, is driving the current recession. People with money to invest just don't know which way the wind is blowing, re regulations, strength of the dollar, European markets, etc, and so aren't doing anything. Could not a high deficit fuel that uncertainty? Also, how do we address that uncertainty? (I do believe a lot of it is manufactured by the bickering of Congress, but barring declaring a dictatorship, I don't see that changing anytime soon...)

I think that the deficit can be worked down over time if the government does more of what Clinton did--making it hard to pass expensive programs that are unfunded. When Congress passes legislation, they should not separate that passage from the means to pay for it--either through borrowing, raising taxes, or funding other programs. Higher taxes for high income levels need to be restored to at least where they were under Clinton. Interest income should be taxed at the same rate as all other income.

One effect of the deficit is that it has practically forced the fed to keep interest rates at near zero. Interest rate manipulation has gone about as far as it can to help the economy. It can't substitute for fiscal stimulus. What this means is that the government can borrow money at fantastically low rates. Hence, borrowing money now is not such a bad thing. That was why there was such a big stink when Republican shenanigans in Congress finally opened the door to having our rating dropped. Luckily, that didn't stop people from buying up treasury bonds, even with their historically low yields.

 

[Revoltingest]

It seems to me that not only lack of demand, but uncertainty about the future, is driving the current recession. People with money to invest just don't know which way the wind is blowing, re regulations, strength of the dollar, European markets, etc, and so aren't doing anything. Could not a high deficit fuel that uncertainty? Also, how do we address that uncertainty? (I do believe a lot of it is manufactured by the bickering of Congress, but barring declaring a dictatorship, I don't see that changing anytime soon...)

If spending, borrowing & currency dilution were reined it, it might free up the lending market. As things stand, we expect inflation to take off, so interest rates
are high & borrowing is difficult. One owner I know just had his commercial loan bumped from 5% to 10%. I'm facing 8% to 16% in my upcoming refinances.

 

[Copernicus]

If spending, borrowing & currency dilution were reined it, it might free up the lending market. As things stand, we expect inflation to take off, so interest rates are high & borrowing is difficult. One owner I know just had his commercial loan bumped from 5% to 10%. I'm facing 8% to 16% in my upcoming refinances.

The whole idea of the TARP was to free up the lending market. Instead, the bankers just took the money and freed up the ceiling on their bonuses and benefits packages. The problem is not spending, borrowing, and currency dilution. The problem is that people are unemployed and cannot afford to buy the goods and services that lead to growth in capital. You need economic activity to expand wealth, and you will not get it with austerity measures. Businesses will not feel more inclined to expand when demand is weak.

 

[Alceste]

Well, you have to start by convincing them that not getting a college degree, and therefore taking worse jobs and making less money, will be worth it when their kids [hopefully] pay less in tuition.

Having decided not to go to university myself, partly due to debt aversion, I don't know what I would tell kids these days. I don't make much money (yet), but lots of people I work with make the same amount of money as I do and spend a giant chunk of their earnings on their education debt. I spend mine on gin and tonic. lol. I'd rather be me, to be honest.

 

[Alceste]

It seems to me that not only lack of demand, but uncertainty about the future, is driving the current recession. People with money to invest just don't know which way the wind is blowing, re regulations, strength of the dollar, European markets, etc, and so aren't doing anything. Could not a high deficit fuel that uncertainty? Also, how do we address that uncertainty? (I do believe a lot of it is manufactured by the bickering of Congress, but barring declaring a dictatorship, I don't see that changing anytime soon...)

My sense is that our fiscal problems aren't at all related to bickering in any particular country. We have passed peak oil production and our global economy is entirely dependent on oil. Nothing else can replace it. This means we are entering a period of permanent, global economic contraction. At the same time, all the balance sheets of all the banks in the world are simply a tally of all the money they expect to make if the feeding frenzy never ends.

There's no reason to be uncertain about the future if you take a close look at what is actually happening.

 

[Reverend Rick]

I think that the deficit can be worked down over time if the government does more of what Clinton did--making it hard to pass expensive programs that are unfunded.

Clinton was fortunate enough to have a social security surplus to help balance the budget. With baby boomers retiring and medicare costs increasing, I doubt we will ever be that fortunate again and achieving what Clinton did.

How can we ever work down the deficit when we borrow 40 cents of every dollar we spend?

We would have to raise taxes by 20% and cut every program 20% across the board to even have a shot at this. :sorry1: