Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ilaine who wrote (75725)	10/8/2004 11:16:51 AM
From: Mary Cluney	Read Replies (5) \| Respond to of 793896

Only a socialist or a child would believe that any President has much effect on the economy. Seriously. You're an adult. You post on an investment website. Explain to me what, exactly, Clinton or Rubin did to give us a good economy. Then tell me what, exactly, Bush did to give us a bad economy. While you're at it, please explain how a 5.4% unemployment rate and a Dow over 10K are indicators of a bad economy. I am all ears. The President inherits a lot of stuff that he has no control over. Just as a great track coach can not make some one run a four minute mile, if that person does not have the inherent abilities, but a lousy coach can screw up a kid and not allow the kid to come anywhere near his potential. Clinton/Rubin managed to turn a budget deficit into the biggest budget surplus in history. Bush and who ever are responsible for providing the economic vision (his first team of advisors have left)have turned this budget surplus into the greatest budget deficit in the history of mankind. First of all, anyone who manages a budget deficit has some explaining to do. If you are running a household budget and you are deeply in debt, no matter what the circumstances (you have bad weather, stormy marriage, sickness, unemployment, whatever) - you are open to criticism and you have explaining to do. What you can't say is that things are going great - I'm going to continue to do what I am doing. Secondly, you have to get terrific economic advisors. Having some shallow understanding of some philosophic principles are not enough. Inevivatbly economic advisors of even the same stripe (philosophically) will disagree . There has to be someone at the top that has to make the proper choices. Bush has been a slacker all his life. IMO, he does not know enough about the economy to be able to make the choices his economic advisors present to him. The dismissal of Paul O'Neil and the first set of Whitehouse economic advisors suggest that all is not going well. WRT economics - as with anything else - there has to be a vision thing. Some one at the top has to have some sort of vision. The economic advisors can provide the means (the choices that you have to make) to make your vision a reality. Who in the Bush administration has the economic vision? While you're at it, please explain how a 5.4% unemployment rate and a Dow over 10K are indicators of a bad economy. The numbers by themselves have no real meaning. It only has meaning in its context. During the Bush adminstration there has been a net loss in jobs created. This hasn't happened since before Herbert Hoover. There are no doubt complicated factors that you, me, or George Bush can not explain. But, it is not anything that you can celebrate.

To: Ilaine who wrote (75725)	10/8/2004 4:09:09 PM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 793896

<Only a socialist or a child would believe that any President has much effect on the economy. Seriously> CB, you are very seriously AWOL with that one. That's saying that President AWOL has insignificant powers, which means the hype and hysteria over the election would as well be directed at a red ant versus black ant match over a piece of cheese on the side of a dusty road somewhere. We all know that what the President does has a substantial impact on the USA. He appoints Supreme Court judges for a start, who mess with the constitution and a lot more besides [such as deciding who is President]. I'm sure you can think of other effects that a President has. The President doesn't just fiddle with finances, but nevertheless has large economic effects. I'm not a socialist or a child. But I think that not only does the President have a large effect on the USA economy, they have a large effect on my economy, not to mention the world's economy. Sure, they don't single-handedly do it all, but they can certainly mess up a LOT. They set the rules and the rest of us are stuck with them. Yes, Congress, the Senate and Supreme Court all dabble too. We all have a dabble and have an effect, to a greater or lesser extent. Even I have an effect on the USA economy, albeit a small one, and I don't have an Oval Office and a vast military to back me up and a whole bunch of constitutional powers. Clinton for example, in cahoots with Uncle Al KBE, did a financial rescue of Mexico in about 1995, which could have led to a cascading financial and economic problem. He wisely re-appointed our great and estimable idol, Mr Green$pan, who stemmed the cascading flood of debt collapse emanating from the crash of Globalstar's Zenit over Siberia which precipitated the Long Term Capital Management saga which was in the midst of the Asian Contagion. 5.4% unemployment is related to tightened unemployment rules and the need to get out and get a job, any job. A Dow over 10,000 is in part related to the shrinking of the measuring stick [the US$] due to the special theory of relativity = as the speed of production of new US$ increases, time dilatation means the size of the dollar shrinks so things appear bigger than they are. In lay language, for those who count on their fingers and get writer's block when they contemplate Shrodinger's equation's implications, a loaf of bread cost a dime a century ago and a dollar today [give or take a few slices]. Dimes to dollars! Dow 10,000 will be Dow 20,000 soon enough, but we won't be any richer [in loaves of bread, though we will in CDMA cyberphones thanks to the technological revolution which was barely touched by the Y2K judder bar]. Mqurice [extreme right wing olde geezer]

To: Ilaine who wrote (75725)	10/8/2004 9:03:24 PM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793896

CB, <Explain to me what, exactly, Clinton or Rubin did to give us a good economy. Then tell me what, exactly, Bush did to give us a bad economy. > apart from the general principles on what effect a USA President can have on the USA and world economies, let's consider only the King George II effects. As you pointed out, his Supreme Court judge appointments haven't had an effect, [which doesn't deny my point that Presidential appointments of Supreme Court judges does have an effect]. But Bush applying to the Supreme Court to be appointed was the first major effect he had. He got to be the boss instead of Al Gore. Deciding to pursue his opportunity to the Supreme Court was the first impact he had. If the previous appointments had been opposed to him gaining power [as one or two were if I recall - of course on legal principles, not preference], he'd have been out and Gore in. We might then have had a CO2 vendetta, no war in Iraq, but war in Taiwan or whatever else might have happened as a result of Gore being the boss. So, even before he was President, he had an impact by stopping Gore before he started. Then, he started spending money like there was no tomorrow, as he presumably believes there won't be if we take his religious mania seriously [complete with Armageddon and the rapture - I note that Armageddon isn't far from Baghdad]. He started a war in Iraq, which has cost umpty $billion in cash and quite a few $billion in lives and injuries. He heavily damaged the aviation industry with panic over security and nail-clippers. That cost a lot of $billions. He cut taxes, causing large deficits, which misled Americans into thinking they had more spending power than they have, so they've run themselves heavily into debt, which is going to have to be repaid or otherwise absorbed by way of economic dislocation. Living on debt and hope is NOT the way to economic advancement. It's the way to economic ruin as many banana republics can attest [quite large ones such as Brazil and Argentina included]. As interest rates rise, as they assuredly will from world record low rates in an inflationary fiat money economy, people with megamortgages [or even smaller ones] are going to find themselves squeezed and many will fail. Disruption of housing is a bad effect on economies [meaning what happens in people's lives]. Perhaps King George II has simple-mindedly believed the false cliche that "wars are good for the economy". Claiming "I'm a war president" leads me to think he doesn't understand just how bad wars are, especially if one is involved as more than an arms-for-cash supplier to the warring parties. He has stopped me going to the USA and spending money there with his rabid attitude [for fear of crazies arresting me for some odd passport mistake - maybe filling in a form incorrectly or looking at an official in an untoward way]. Visitors to the USA were down a longgg way if I recall correctly. That's cash flow gone missing from the economy. Heard of steel tariffs? news.bbc.co.uk That ensured a good supply of cheaper steel for China, which used it to build more stuff and gain ground on the USA economy. Not only were tariffs illegal, they were economically damaging to the USA GDP. Cutting taxes in one place and whacking them on elsewhere is disruptive to smooth economic processes and forces people to second-guess where to invest, change plans, lose investments and get poorer. That's bad for the GDP. Better to have a steady approach to taxation and a rational one. Bush flip-flopping on taxes is typical of his wonky simplistic thinking. Actually, I'm in favour of tariffs rather than internal taxes, so I agree with the principle of what Bush did, but on again off again isn't the way to do it. I suppose there are plenty of other things Bush has done to damage the economy. But on to Clinton. He cut military spending. Good thing too. That saved umpty $billions. He bailed out Mexico and made a profit on the deal. That was a great move. He put the screws on welfare and that pushed people in the direction of production instead of pleading. Excellent move. He gave the world a great soap opera with Monica, Gennifer and so on and that perks people up. It's dead-centre USA culture - look at Hollywood and the saucy USA is streets ahead of the stolid male grouchiness of the Kremlin, Taleban and North Korea. That revved the economy. Al Gore invented the internet and awarded a Medal of Honour to Dr Irwin Jacobs of QUALCOMM, which made him feel good and stuck with his CDMA and the political backing of Clinton/Gore no doubt helped QUALCOMM attain its pre-eminent position. That's a mega$billion boost to the GDP and just getting revved up. Clinton appointed Alan Green$pan a couple of times and that was a great move, avoiding a global financial collapse at the denouement of the Biotelecosmictechdot.com speculation and smoothing the way for King George II to take the reigns of something better than a smoldering heap of rubble. And so on. President's have a LOT of power, even if they are misunderestimated and can't spell potatoe or use apostrophe's. Mqurice PS: Isn't it great how we males have all the answers?