Another Reason California Is Tanking

[Bill Moore]

It seems several of the posters here really do need to "get out of their mother's basement", and find out how the world exists. The idea of more taxes, more government, (and the associated services), have all been tried elsewhere, and the europeans are going broke! Greece and Spain are virtually bankrupt providing services, and early retirement to their people without the income to pay for it.
Once you learn that government economy is no different than the individual, (if you don't have the money, you can't afford it), you see what you have to buy, not what you would like to.
All wealth comes from the ground, and the rest of us trade our labor (services),or goods we took from the ground, to folks who have the goods that we need to live. Of course things get more complicated when we have money as an indicator of wealth, as money is no longer tied to a certain value, and countries can print all they want. This is what happened in Greece, the country does not produce enough wealth (GDP) to pay for its spending, so it's money is worthless. Now other european nations are trying to prop up their economy so their own currency (Euro) is worth something.
We really don't want that to happen here, although the left is trying!

[CzarSketch]

Bill,

That "the left" is trying to bring us to our economic knees is an inaccurate statement and a generalization. It's just as true to say that "the right" is a bunch of gun-toting bigoted crazies. Also entirely untrue.

The examples of Greece and Spain are also not really accurate here--Greece misrepresented its financial status in the same way that AIG did, and suffered the consequences once the financial fabric started to tear at the seams. Spain is following because out of the countries in Europe, it has the most fragile economy.

Government economy is entirely different from that of the individual. Certainly fiscal solvency is key, but a government operates much more like a corporation, with gigantic lines of credit, outstanding debts, IOU systems, and the like.

All wealth does NOT come from the ground. In fact, most wealth is held by the top 1% of citizens in the world, and that wealth is traded and traded and traded--in the financial sector, money itself is what makes money. In this country in particular, there are very few things that back up the wealth held by our richest citizens. That's one of the main reasons we're in this crisis--we allowed companies to pretend they had financial worth that they didn't have.

As for printing money we can't back up, we've been doing that ever since Nixon. Our currency is not backed by precious metals any longer, nor is it tied to anything other than other currencies. That ship has sailed, sir.

And that's sort of what I mean--we are in a situation we have never been in. Round hole. Square peg.

[Skip]

They make great guitars in California... and of course there are those "California Girls" we have all enjoyed ogling over the years, and of course lots of cool things are there... So let it go and vote when you can, talk is cheap actions run deep!

[elicross]

So let it go and vote when you can, talk is cheap actions run deep!

Post o' the week!

[Bill Moore]

CS, I wish I was around 20 years from now, and had the chance to get your opinion, once you've paid a lot of bills , and raised a family. You and your kids, and my kids, and grandkids will still be paying off the debts incurred in the last few years. Then you will know what us "experienced" guys are talking about. The rhetoric only works in academia, not in real life. The guys who are teaching, are not the ones that have made it in life.
My old boss used to have a term for many of the professors at our little college, most had no common sense, and went on endlessly about how they felt, and what they were thinking when their car quit. They couldn't tell you if they were uphill, downhill, accelerating or braking when it occured though. When I asked the boss what was happening, he would say "hell he don't know, it's one of those sexual intellectuals, you know, they read all about it".

[elicross]

I'll be 45 this month, and I'm liberal as can be. Will you discard my opinions as coming from youth and inexperience?

[Bill Moore]

Elicross, there is another option, we have been given the means, and ability, but it is up to us to use that knowledge. If you're happy with the burden left to our kids and grandkids, as a means of advancing the agenda of the left, so be it.
You should contact your favorite liberal congressman before this november though, and wish them well in the unemployment line. Most folks have had enough!

[elicross]

Bill, do you see that egg over there? It's a chicken I don't think you've counted yet.

[Bill Moore]

I really like the line " I can see november from my house".
I not only mocks the left's view of their scariest adversary, Sarah, but it is a harbinger of things to come.

[elicross]

Not only is Hockey Mom not our scariest adversary, she's our greatest hope. In the extremely unlikely even that she becomes the GOP nominee for president in 2012, she'll hand President Obama his second term on a silver platter. That's an unhatched egg I *will* count as a chicken.

[Cygnus X1]

Not only is Hockey Mom not our scariest adversary, she's our greatest hope. In the extremely unlikely even that she becomes the GOP nominee for president in 2012, she'll hand President Obama his second term on a silver platter. That's an unhatched egg I *will* count as a chicken.

Hard not to comment on this.
It would sound absurd to say that Obama is Carter times ten.

But I said it in summer of 2007.

"Mark it on the calender".

So please just detail for me how the current administration is doing anything that helps push the engine of industry forward. The tax cuts will expire, it will kill the very engine that is huffing for breath right now.
Growth?
What growth?
Unemployment number drops because people have given up...read...their benefits ran out and they are not counted.
I have never seen those numbers that upside down, and I grew up in the Carter fiasco.
"Great guy, really meant well...etc. Rubbish"

There is no doubt in my mind.
The current administration and the infamous Congress that gained control in 2006.

Repeat after me:
2006.

Say it again...2006.

OK, now that great institution that gained control when the very tail end of the legacy of Reagan died in the halls of Congress in 2006.
Blame Bush and march forward to place the boots on the necks of the producers of the country.

So here we stand.
Blame whoever.
The wrong steps are being taken at very worst time.
They seem to believe wealth comes from the government, or from penalizing the producers.

Only hope there is, is that the Congress will turn over to NOT Republicans, but to Conservatives.
Those that place their belief in the power of the small business owner that ultimately drives everything both upwards, and provides the basic services and jobs we desperately need NOW.

Anything else is just Soviet style redistribution, and in a world based economy...they will continue to drive the jobs elsewhere.

Libs are the worst, but to the uneducated, sound the best.
Whatever their professed best intentions...the opposite happens because they do not believe in the industrious good faith of Men without Government.

And that's all I am saying about that!

[elicross]

No one took control of Congress in 2006.

The Democratic Party won control of Congress in 2006. They took control in January of 2007.

The Bush tax cuts are not expiring for everyone. They're expiring for individuals who make more than $200,000 a year, and for families that make more than $250,000 a year.

If you make more than that, congratulations. And on behalf of those of us who voted for President Obama and the Democrats, you're welcome.

[redb]

So please just detail for me how the current administration is doing anything that helps push the engine of industry forward. The tax cuts will expire, it will kill the very engine that is huffing for breath right now.

Businesses do not pay taxes, they pass it on to consumers. This is a basic economic principle and despite the simple premise it is actually quite a deep observation.

In fact, I'm all for a complete elimination of corporate income taxes. Of course, the people making a lot of money (say, 250gs or more) need to get ready to have a high marginal tax rate for those dollars exceeding 250g. And you'll actually have to pay that 30% on that money (though of course anything you make less than that will be charged at a lower rate so dont go telling me you would drop an income tax bracket that is actually the least intelligent statement anyone could make; you cannot ever make less money by moving up a tax bracket in a scheduled system). Im especially against sales taxes; they are dreadful, regressive things.

If your supposition is that government cannot represent a solution you should bow out of the discussion. You do not contribute anything by saying we can do nothing; so wait patiently and if the other solutions fail then you can say "told you so".

But you'll never get that opportunity. Ask Herbert Hoover how that worked out for him. For that matter, ask Ayn Rand how happy she really was (hint: not at all).

I happen to have a 4 year degree in economics. It's true, my life experiences arent anything like most people's, but I fail to see how what I learned was useless. It certainly applies to my own life. Maybe instead of telling me how I should throw myself into misery, you should take the hand that I so desperately want to extend to you. One that I have the tools, incidentally, to make happen.

I think people allow jealousy and anger to crush the things they know are right. If you want to know the honest truth, I have always had to rely on others to give me moral guidance in these issues. I am as cold and emotionless a person as you will ever find, but I found solace in some unexpected places.

Again I cannot understand the spite towards a spirit of sharing that I see out of some of you. Do you really believe it's impossible? And if it is actually impossible, do you resign yourself to focus inwards and sell everyone else up the creek?

Some of you have far too much faith in humans as decision makers. I need but one piece of evidence to show that regular people are absolutely horrible at being economically intelligent:

people buy lottery tickets at 5 dollars a piece.

next time you have a second, think about the probability of winning the lottery and compare it with how much the jackpot is worth, and you will find out why states make money hand over fist with them.

[Cygnus X1]

The Bush tax cuts are not expiring for everyone. They're expiring for individuals who make more than $200,000 a year, and for families that make more than $250,000 a year.

Taking away from that group in particular shifts economic activity towards the government and away from others downstream that could use the jobs.
People think 250K is "rich".
Not at all.
Some are at retirement age and that money will barely hold them over if they live long enough.
The younger ones who spend it are spreading their wealth to the people who provide the items and services.
Not to mention the small business owners in that group.

If your supposition is that government cannot represent a solution you should bow out of the discussion.

Well put.

I can't change your mind on that point, so I find it impossible to have a conversation.
That doesn't mean you win the argument.

Some of you have far too much faith in humans as decision makers. I need but one piece of evidence to show that regular people are absolutely horrible at being economically intelligent:

people buy lottery tickets at 5 dollars a piece.

next time you have a second, think about the probability of winning the lottery and compare it with how much the jackpot is worth, and you will find out why states make money hand over fist with them.

Grouping everyone in that one category is as ignorant a statement as one could make.

My distrust for government does not grow about due to bitterness or not wanting to share my wealth.

I would FAR rather pay a guy to cut my grass with the money I have to pay in taxes...to pay that guy unemployment benefits...and so on.
Instead I have to wonder if he's just plain lazy for collecting checks while he gets increasingly frustrated because he can't seem to get any work.

Fact is he is getting enslaved to the redistributionist system.
A drink or two is fine.
Getting drunk is bad.

[Offshore Angler]

OSA's Law states that:

"The more inclined somebody is to to lecture me about values and morality the more likely it is that that person is buggering underage boys."

And it's corollary states "The more inclined someone is to lecture me about how little I know about economics the more unlikely it is that that person has made as much money or amassed as much personal wealth as I have."


I am pretty progressive, not because I can latch on to the bumper sticker wisdom of talking points, but because I can think.

The problems with California's economy are a direct result Reaganomincs and the subsequent actions by Clinton which backed up rather than rescinded the Reagan polices.

As a direct result of those policies VC's are no longer interested in new technologies unless they are scaled in China. Want proof ? Look at the unemployment rate in Silicon Valley. About the highest in the country.

California is the bellwether of the US economy. New technology is scaled overseas, so no american jobs are created, the middle class gets squeezed out. The middle class taxes carry the state. So we remove the ability of the middle class to pay the tax burden while at the same time giving unprecedented tax breaks to the richest americans.

Anybody - anybody - ANYBODY who thinks this is sound fiscal policy and wants to explain to me how it is, I'm all ears.

All americans should be watching what is happening in California and getting very, very concerned.
The top earners, high value VC's invest... in offshore scaling which reduces US jobs. Unless you have an Asian scaling plan, nobody will even talk to you.

Which is all bullshit. The company I am helping right now manufactures in the US and ships to customers in China and makes a good profit. It can be done.

Tell you what. You all can keep bellowing slogans at each other. In the mean time, I'll just put my head down and use my time and talent to make America a better place and create good jobs for my countrymen and women - while the righties keep calling me a shitty american.

[rudutch]

Businesses do not pay taxes, they pass it on to consumers. This is a basic economic principle and despite the simple premise it is actually quite a deep observation.

I am willing to bet 70% of the voting public does not comprehend this!

I am still waiting for the 'flat tax' that was promised 10 year back.
EVERY ONE pays "X" % - no more social engineering, government incentives, rebates, creits, deductions, loop holes, etc etc.. you make $100 or a million you pay the same rate. It can't be more simple of fair

I'm sure the accountants would be harmed but I think the big picture would be better.

It's time for a 3rd party to enter the elected - maybe a new group of crooks would be less effective at looking out for their own interests

No personal attacks, end my political rant.

[CzarSketch]

+1 OSA.

Yes, Bill, I'm young. I'm also Jewish, white, male, not wealthy, educated, I speak english and spanish, and have a beard. Do you want to make assumptions on the quality of my opinions based on those factors, too? You'd be right in assuming my age affects my judgment, but you'd be wrong to assume it makes my opinion invalid.

Also, quit assuming I'm a democrat. Or a socialist. Or anything other than a fellow citizen who has the same concerns and frustrating experiences as you. The communities that their problems are similar and their salvation lies in collective action are the ones that are able to turn things around. Look at Barbados and their history with the IMF. Or the founding of this country.

Again--and this is a shameless plug--if you'd really like to engage me in a discussion about community development and responsibility, I am part of many different efforts to promote solidarity in communities that need help in NYC. I'd be more than happy to talk to anyone about what seems to work and what doesn't, in reality, in this day and age.

[juniorspecial]

The idea that a flat income tax is a good way to handle our taxes is ridiculous. Somebody making a million dollars a year should pay taxes at a higher percentage rate than someone making fifty thousand.

The idea of a progressive income tax is one of the inviolate principles of a civilized society.

Look around, and look through the history pages as well. There has been no successful stable country that has relied solely on a flat tax system. The reason being, that if one taxes the poor at the very same rate as the rich, the poor--who outnumber the rich--resent it, and it leads to all sorts of social problems. Not the least of which is rioting.

In principle and in the abstract it may look attractive. But, like free love, and some other great notions, it doesn't acknowledge some basic human emotions. And is thus doomed to failure.

[elicross]

Personally, I'd be happy to pay a higher income tax rate in exchange for making a quarter of a million buckazoids a year. I'd cry all the way to the bank -- in my red Corvette -- about how some of my money was going to reduce the deficit, provide for the common defense, and promote the general welfare of my fellow citizens. Just show me where I sign up!

[Mesotech]

I can't agree that businesses pay no taxes, but instead pass them on to their customers. That simply doesn't hold water with the company I work for.

Our customers are constantly looking for ways to cut their costs, which means they squeeze us for every bit they can get. We can't pass on the cost of a pencil to a customer without them screaming for a concession the price of a car.

There's only one way I know of for businesses to not pay taxes, and that is for them to not make a profit. They can't make a profit if the customers are tightening the purse strings and competitors are likewise reducing their prices to stay competative. Of course, not making a profit is completely counter productive to being in business, and businessmen will do what they can to make a company profitable. This generally means reducing the companies expenses as much as possible. The greatest expense for any company is salaries, and that's where they start their cuts (because if they were good businessmen to begin with, all other costs of doing business are already trimmed lean). Reducing salaries typically means getting rid of people, you know, the same people whom the socialists are trying to "help". Increasing taxes on businesses in other places besides "income tax" (such as payroll taxes, VAT taxes, use taxes, sales taxes, increased regulatory taxes such as what are promised in the cap and trade scam, and increased government regulatoins in general) all cause a business to reduce the number of employees. Socialists seem to fail to recognize that the government can not function to provide for "those poor souls" if the engine that drives the government (taxes) ceases to run. It is at that point that socialism has historically failed, and will continue to fail, because then the people still demand their entitlement benefits that the government can no longer provide.

There is a reason that a lot of companies shift their operations overseas, and that reason is simple. It is less expensive to operate there than it is here. The only solution to that problem is to make it more cost effective to produce here, meaning less government, taxes, and restrictions. Then companies will be in a position to make money, hire people, and feed the governments tax/spend habit. But then... the entire cycle would begin again....

[Offshore Angler]

((sorry, Safari does weird things when editing here))

[Offshore Angler]

((See above!))

[Offshore Angler]

...
The greatest expense for any company is salaries, and that's where they start their cuts (because if they were good businessmen to begin with, all other costs of doing business are already trimmed lean). ...
...

Meso - that is completely untrue. Direct Labor costs are only a small percentage of the total cost of of product. In some products such as discreet electronics, the labor costs are essentially zero.

And one of the fundamental tenets of lean, and this is always in taught in the first five minutes of any lean course is that "lean is not intended to reduce the number of employees."

I have shown twice, at two major US businesses that the cost savings in direct labor costs by offshore scaling are negligible. The increased inventory costs incurred by the time and resources it takes to deliver to the shipping agent, containerize, load, ship, unload, de-container, redistribute and then distribute are higher than the savings in labor unless the volumes are significantly higher than most products encounter.

Proof positive of the above - Asian auto manufacturers have moved their production to the US to REDUCE their costs. You don't really believe they did it out of the goodness of their hearts now, do you?

The reason(s) offshore products are sometimes cheaper are

1) The foreign companies invested in modern manufacturing facilities and we didn't

2) Foreign government subsidize exports as a way to build their Commons.

3) Some foreign companies have labor practices that are considered illegal and violations of human rights.
And the cost of quality goes way up when you discover defective products in a supply chain that is measured in weeks instead of days. Shipping aircraft part manufacturing offshore for example, is just stupid. But yet it happens because the previous administration made deals for cheap loans to finance the deficit they created.

The current climate of offshore scaling in purely the result of Reaganomics which is not a means of creating new wealth, but redistributing existing wealth.

Let me explain. Wealth is created when raw materials are exploited. For example, oil in the ground is worthless, as is iron ore. Or gold. But pull it from the ground, add value to it by processing it and making objects of commerce and wealth is created. Or growing crops. We call that ( or at least use to ) "adding value".

In the "Services Economy" of Reaganites, No wealth is created. It is merely passed around. (Interestingly, the term Value Added was transferred from production workers to managers by Services Economy disciples!)

What happens next? The middle class moves from earning personal wealth by value adding jobs to living on credit.

OK - but think about it - since we are not actually creating wealth, where does the money they borrow actually come from?

And there is the devil in the details. To feed the beast, the previous administration de-regulated and de-regulated to allow the money suppliers to do things that were just plain...dumb.

For example - the secondary, or "derivatives market. It now exceeds the entire GDP for the planet and is based on ...drum roll please... absolutely nothing. That's right, nothing more than a house of cards. It used to be illegal, but thanks to the Reagan groupies, it's considered good business.

Or allowing home lending banks to become "financial institutions" which again was illegal not too long ago.


Actions such as these, and many more - I can go on but won't bore you - are what led to the financial meltdown. Add in trade policies that encourage offshore scaling of any new technologies and you have the makings of what is happening in California, New York, and soon coming to a state near you unless things change.

While we were legislating easier ways to redistribute the wealth by making "air deals" over here, China, Indonesia, India, ... were all investing in new, modern production facilities that were more efficient than decades old US plants. Instead of tax breaks for the rich, they put the money into the Commons. The Commons, now there's an antiquated concept.

What the Reaganites fail to realize is simple:

It is not government taxes that are killing the US economy, it is government policies that are. And these failed policies fall squarely on the shoulders of Republicans, with a little help from Clinton.

[mgade]

He he, we payed more taxes than any nation on earth. We were headed for the state bankrupcy. We had riots over EU referendums. We haven't any natural recourses worth speaking of (a bit oil in the North Sea and our precious heads). We are 'round 5 million people. We do the Afghan War with the highest casualty rate pr. capita of any nation (last time I heard of it) We have one of the most open economies on earth and have had that for a long time. We are EU members and our currency are effectively the Euro (constant fixed excange rate).

I see one major difference between DK and USA: We agree on things. Most likely because we are small enough to be pretty homogenous, but I'm not so sure why. Bottom line is: We do agree. There are generally consensus throughout all parties though we usually have coalition governments.

On my recent trip to the US we (a Dane and an Australian) discussed US traffic in cab. Since the Australian are used to left lane traffic we came up on discussing roundabouts, bout expressing less than love for this little thing. Then the cab driver came into the discussion with the statement of the holiday: "We hate them as well - it's the government that makes them".

That was one of two remarks that kept repeating throughout our holiday as a very in-joke. "It's the government, you know". (I won't say what the other remark was! NOPE!)

[Offshore Angler]

BTW, kudos to all fo keeping this fairly civil to this point. Speaks highly of our little community here.

What's the over/under post count for when we envoke Godwin's law?

[redb]

OSA's Law states that:

"The more inclined somebody is to to lecture me about values and morality the more likely it is that that person is buggering underage boys."

And it's corollary states "The more inclined someone is to lecture me about how little I know about economics the more unlikely it is that that person has made as much money or amassed as much personal wealth as I have."

My apologies for being preachy at 3 a.m. Actually tbh Ive been a bit tentative about even reading the thread because the stuff I wrote wasnt particularly well thought out or lucid.

However, I still do dismay about the heartlessness I perceive in these discussions that tries to remove the human element to make it a fiscal discussion (not even necessarily an economic one). I do appreciate the humor in your folk law, though.

As for your second one, I can't agree with that one at all. Money isn't a good judge of how much you know about economics. The super, super rich people in the beginning were made up largely of a. those rich from nepotism and b. engineers and now it's business people.

I went to school with business people for 4 years. They don't know shit about economics. Frankly I feel like I dont know shit and that's what I actually studied. But still, I can find you a person with millions in the bank that they themselves earned who couldnt tell you the difference between John Maynard Keynes and Bertil Ohlin.

BTW if I may make a point, I would never suggest that individual economic behavior should be regulated in the way that fundamentalists believe the government should regulate behavior. I think that people should, within rules preserving transparency and limiting the ability of people to outright screw each other, do whatever the hell they like. I would never tell a person what to do with their life, instead I would leave that discussion for what to do when tax funds are collected.

In short, the only thing I really disagree with is the attitude that some people are less deserving of help because they are perceived to be "lazy" or "stupid" or "criminals" which permeates some discussions that usually end in one person suggesting that such people "get a job".

[Bill Moore]

It has been shown that the longer unemployment benefits exist, the longer it takes people to find work. I'm sure the same holds true for other types of assistance. Makes perfect sense to me, but I don't have a degree in anything.

[CzarSketch]

A correlation exists between longer unemployment benefits and the amount of time it takes for the average individual on unemployment to find work. This is true.

There is no implied causation behind this, and it is entirely inaccurate to speculate that one causes the other. I don't have a degree in math but this is basic statistics.

I can think of about 5 reasons why this would be caused OTHER than abusing the windfall, which seems to be what you're implying. None of my 5 reasons are any more supported by the evidence than yours is, though.

[Bill Moore]

CS, I have had guys come by my shop inquiring about a job, telling my they would be availlable on a certain date, because that's when unemployment runs out.
Also had guys I worked with at the mine, and were laid off, asked them for some temporary help. Said OK, but needed cash so as not to interfere with unemployment.
Not statistics, just experience.

[elicross]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence

[CzarSketch]

Well, the correlation is statistically defined. I was agreeing with you there.

The scientific method exists for a reason, and if you choose to employ statistics in the course of an argument, then you must acknowledge how and for what purpose those statistics were gathered. Anecdotal evidence has no bearing on population-wide policy.

In fact, I'd argue that politics, and its operators, the politicos, use anecdotal evidence precisely so that they DON'T have to defend their decisions. It would be good practice to hold them to task for this habit, but using the same methods in trying to define a new paradigm is nothing short of lazy. Unfortunately, you and I both know that a majority of the political punditry and statistics gathering out there is motivated by this same desire to erase real measurable information.

[elicross]

The problem with polls and anecdotal evidence is that -- while both sides secretly understand they're malleable and unreliable as proof of anything -- neither side wants to quit using them, because their malleability also makes them extremely convenient and useful when you want to *appear* to prove a point. So Side A is never going to refute Side B's poll or anecdotal evidence by acknowledging that polls and anecdotal evidence are often useless as representations of the big picture...because Side A wants to reserve the right to point to its own poll or anecdotal evidence somewhere down the road.

(Not too far down the road, usually, since a whole industry has risen up to meet the market for polls designed, not for anything approaching scientific accuracy, but to elicit specific answers that support specific ideologies.)

[Offshore Angler]

I can prove statistically that the more miles I drive the more my tires wear out. Statistics are great if you understand thinks like CpK and Standard Deviations, Medians and Means.

Unfortunately, Correlations ARE NOT statistics.

So when people on talk radio pull correlations out of their butts and present them as statistics, they only demonstrate

1) how uneducated they think their audience is and,

2) how willing they are to manipulate the truth to play to people's emotions in order to get Arbitron shares.

Sadly,more people today can sing the Oscar Meyer Wiener song than tell you their senators and congressmen are.

You gotta love righties - how they hold the lead in such erudite strongholds of intelligence including Missouri, Texas, Arkansas...

Now, look at the other guys, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New York, California... dare I say places where the per-capita educational level and might be just a tad higher than the former's.

[Bill Moore]

Well that just proves my old bosses point about "educated" folks, and common sense.
Did you remember after the Bush/Kerry election, we find out that the "rube" from Texas made better grades in college than the highbrow senator from Mass.

[juniorspecial]

Yeah, whatever Dubya's grades were, he was an absolutely horrible President. Absolute disaster.

That's the key point to remember about Dubya: disaster as President. Don't need to know a thing more about him, really.

[elicross]

I've known so many, many people who got excellent grades and were utterly lacking in common sense or even intellectual curiosity.

[redb]

Well that just proves my old bosses point about "educated" folks, and common sense.
Did you remember after the Bush/Kerry election, we find out that the "rube" from Texas made better grades in college than the highbrow senator from Mass.

George W. Bush is as Texan as I am; which is to say only slightly.

Reality is he's another (really, really) rich kid from New York who managed to get into grad school with a laughable 2.75 gpa. Let's just say that if I applied to economics masters programs with that GPA I'd be laughed at. Luckily I dont snort coke and party all day which makes up for my grandfather not being a senator.

And common sense is no substitute for education. I would think that of all things, that would be common sense.

As far as unemployment benefits and job seeking go, this article neatly sums up recent research on the matter and is quite readable:

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/201...ing-austerity/

At this moment and time the republican economic platform is the same as the one from the Reagan white house and that is literally not based in economic study. Similar to their view on abstinence, 25 years later they still want to just lie to people and hope it turns out ok. And if you look at their bank accounts, it sure has.

How many times will it take before the average person wakes up and realizes that Keynes was right?; you can either do nothing and let it work itself over a very long, very painful period of time, or you can attempt to mitigate the situation with spending.

Here is what you need to know: consumption is the only thing that drives the economy. Everything else comes from consumption. Investment, saving, borrowing; if people dont buy, other people dont make. Very simple.

Even though these people are unemployed, they still need to buy food and housing. Beyond that, they still need to buy food and housing or theyll die.

What happened nationally with unemployment benefits was truly terrible. A purely political move that demonstrates clearer than ever that the people we elect will leave us out to die for a little bit of money.

[muddy]

8 years of Republicratic rule got our nation where it is now not our current leadership. What do some of you folks need for proof that big spending GWB and companies policies almost destroyed our economy?

Thank God they didn't have another year?!

Look, I'm not affiliated with any one party, I'm a free-thinker and I sure don't need to check with the right-wing radio talk show host of the week for my talking points....but it is what it is and the right-wingers had control just long enough to all but ruin our nation. From an independent objective observer, the facts speak for themselves.


And Sarah Palin...........really ?

[Bill Moore]

http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla...sion-5409.aspx
This has been out for quite a while, maybe the more "educated" among us can decipher its meaning. Unfortuneately, it's not from one of those "conservative" colleges, or it could be dismissed outright.

[redb]

http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla...sion-5409.aspx
This has been out for quite a while, maybe the more "educated" among us can decipher its meaning. Unfortuneately, it's not from one of those "conservative" colleges, or it could be dismissed outright.

http://www.salon.com/technology/how_...ew_deal_worked

Unemployment was greatly overstate by the people who did that study (they didnt count any of the people hired by government works programs which was several million persons) and I might add that any similar rise in prices and wages would have little to no effect on real wages (real wage = wages adjusted by price level).

No effect on real wages = no effect to either side of the economy

no effect = number of workers hired does not change

Also, that article has a lot of speculation. They claim that if there hadn't been a new deal, then maybe unemployment would have rebounded faster. That is not supported by facts, nor is it disproved.

Ultimately, running budget deficits will stimulate the economy when it is under performing, all else being equal, without fail. Yes there are consequences but it's frankly good policy when there is a crisis.

When it's not a good idea is when you have a budget surplus and the economy is working fine. What's an even worse idea is doing it for 8 straight years when prices can adjust in about 6 months.

tl;dr article is explained away by counting people employed by government projects as employed.

p.s. many economists, even at hippy schools, are pretty conservative. that includes harvard, yale, princeton and cornell as well as berkley, standford and the like.