Economic Market Turmoil

Also, I should note that, if you take the stance that the elderly really don't count, and we as a nation don't want to ensure people are able to retire, and that the elderly have health care-that is, if we're okay with having the post infant mortality life expectancy be in the 60s or 70s*

, we COULD eliminate Social Security and Medicare entirely, and pretty much balance the budget as long as we continue to collect existing payroll taxes-assuming, of course, that old people dying doesn't lead to the utter decimation of the economy.

Rather, I take it as a given that we're not interested in being that kind of a dystopian state. I'd be interested in exploring how the markets would react to the fundamental changing of America to match that kind of society though.

edited 19th Aug '11 5:58:21 PM by TheyCallMeTomu

...I read that, looked at my grandparents sitting in the room with me, and then read it again to make sure you were kidding...

I am now known as Flyboy.

I think it would be attrocious to get rid of the New Deal. Also, to be fair, even the Kill Medicare budget plan does specifically allow anyone currently 55 or older to keep Medicare. So anyone old now would continue under the current plan. It's just those 54 year olds who have to worry about how they're going to have health-care when they're old and gray.

I suppose stocks in private insurance companies would absolutely skyrocket, making them a decent investment?

I think that in the last few months, there is some truth to the idea that uncertainty is hurting the economy. It's just that they conveniently ignore the ones causing that uncertainty.

Blind Final Fantasy 6 Let's Play

Critical strike!

edited 19th Aug '11 6:01:17 PM by USAF713

I am now known as Flyboy.

What's odd is that the S&P Downgrade didn't seem to affect the bond markets at all-it's all in the stock markets. If that was actually uncertainty about our debt and our ability to deal with said debt (which, given obstructionism in Congress, does seem a semi-valid concern) you would have thought people would start avoiding Treasury Bonds. But no-the exact opposite. Which tells me that people are more worried that we can't pass any jobs programs than they are about whether or not we can deal with the debt.

To be fair to Tom, because I don't want to open myself up to some ridiculous argument that acts as a red herring, what the market percieves as effective in regards to fixing the economy (that is, stimulus) doesn't mean it's effective. On the other hand, if economic uncertainty is the reason why we have-go figure-economic uncertainty, then even an uneffective jobs program would be effective, because we believe it to be true.

What's the moral of the story? Obama talked up the Summer of Recovery too much. We can only rely on fairy dust so much-and when you try too much fairy dust and not enough real policy, the effect of future fairy dust is diminished. To put it another way, the administration should have been pessimistic, so that they could claim "Everything went better than expected" which would mean that expectations about the economy would be better, because everyone expects that the administration is persistently underplaying the economy's strengths.

edited 19th Aug '11 6:06:30 PM by TheyCallMeTomu

"Do you know, my son, with what little understanding the world is ruled?"

Some pope, can't remember the name.

The term "Great Man" is disturbingly interchangeable with "mass murderer" in history books.

^^ The bond markets generally have a more long term outlook. Stocks do not.

edited 19th Aug '11 6:04:44 PM by MajorTom

"Allah may guide their bullets, but Jesus helps those who aim down the sights."

Sorry, misread that.

You're suggesting that the bond markets think we can deal with the deficit in the long term.

In any event, the point stands: the problem with the economy right now is our crippling unemployment. We need a jobs program. And no, it can't be 99.9% tax cuts-not even if those tax cuts are payroll tax cuts.

edited 19th Aug '11 6:10:02 PM by TheyCallMeTomu

Remember this? (The AP contributed to the report, so this bill did exist.)

The House Republicans gave a 6 trillion dollar deal really fucking early. Obama promised a veto and Reid wouldn't have it. How was a Republican plan outlining a SIX TRILLION DOLLAR REDUCTION IN THE DEFICIT "Republican obstructionism"?

"Allah may guide their bullets, but Jesus helps those who aim down the sights."

Hey Its That Guy who is my district representative...

I am now known as Flyboy.

Are you serious?

"How is killing medicare*

in order to not actually deal with the deficit for 30 years not a valid plan?"

As I said Tom, if you just want to place all of the burden onto seniors, then that is theoretically an option. However, the rest of the nation has, as a whole, rejected that so-called solution.

I guess you can say the Republicans aren't being obstructionist-they're just rejecting the solution of an actual jobs program.

edited 19th Aug '11 6:11:52 PM by TheyCallMeTomu

Because it was balanced almost entirely on the backs of the poor?

Democracy is the process in which we determine the government that we deserve

I think that plan would have been better if it didn't attack Medicare/Medicaid quite as much and attacked the military pork a bit more, as a trade-off...

I am now known as Flyboy.

NOT TO MENTION that the latest round of jobs programs that are being proposed ARE REPUBLICAN IDEAS.

They disagree with the programs not because they don't think they work-or if they think they don't work, then they were idiots to propose it-but because it's a plan of the president. They don't want Obama to fix the economy and therefore get re-elected.

If I was Rick Perry, and they were Ben Bernake, I'd say that Texas would treat them unkindly.

Look, the stimulus created as many as 3.3 million jobs, and that's just counting direct job creation. Now, does that theoretically mean that it cost us 240k per job? Sure-if they had been digging holes and filling them back in. But we were spending that money to fund infrastructure projects, projects that the country desperately needs. This isn't just pissing money away on nothing at all, this is investing in our nation's future. The effectiveness of stimulus is demonstrated fact. Now, the most cost effective way of achieving stimulus is something that people can disagree on. I personally prefer infrastructure, but the Obama administration has a fetish for payroll tax cuts, whereas Republicans tend to prefer corporate tax cuts.

Incidentally, as the theory goes, if we tried stimulus projects for infrastructure in times of growth, there might be crowding out-after all, there's only so many construction workers. So in a way, even if stimulus somehow didn't employ people (I am uncertain as to how that's even possible), it's important to invest in infrastructure during times of economic stagnation, just so that you don't have to do it when the economy is broken.

That is, break the window when the glaser is underworked, not when his schedule is packed.

I think 10%ish unemployment pretty much fits the criteria.

But you know the GREATEST indicator that we should have stimulus? It's right in the CBO's report regarding the stimulus: "More generally, historical evidence shows the effects of policies under average economic conditions. Under current conditions—in which interest rates are apt to be less affected than usual by expansionary government policies and in which there are large amounts of idle resources—the effects would probably be greater than they were, on average, in the past."

The CBO says now is probably a good time to spend. Don't disappoint.

Incidentally: I suspect I talk too much. It's too easy for people to just run off and not answer the biting indictments of their philosophies when the next guy goes on a blatantly tl;dr rant. There's the tendency to pick up on some minutia to change the topic to something less damning. I tend to be very vulnerable to that.

edited 20th Aug '11 1:51:01 PM by TheyCallMeTomu

Not sure if I've got a source, but it appears that the NTC's advance on Tripoli has led to an upturn in the markets, mostly due to Libyan oil. Lots of green arrows on the BBC's summary.

Ohey, found a source, not sure how detailed.

edited 22nd Aug '11 7:50:00 AM by AllanAssiduity