The General Economics Thread

Minicab hire sound intriguing, but I have no familiarity with it. I've never heard of such a thing in the states.

I'm just saying, if you go by "Economy decides the Election" theory:

Britain went to the Tories for enough of the not Scotland areas because they were rewarded for economic growth.

Obama was punished in 2014 for not providing a strong enough recover in 2014 by giving him more Repubs.

If Greece Flu or Sino Flu gets bad enough, Joe American is going to decide we need a fresh faced innovator like Scott Walker to bust the Unions and make America Great Again(TM)(R)(C).

edited 30th Jun '15 11:28:22 AM by PotatoesRock

If American voters can't be arsed to care about anything longer in the past than 6 months, they sure as hell aren't going to give a damn about Greece or China.

Not unless recessions there made enough of a difference in our own economy that ordinary people could see it, but that's unlikely.

It's only a contributing theory, i'd argue, not an absolute. So much of elections nowadays depend upon turnout and demographic slicing rather than the general national mood, which is why 2014 was a Republican wave: Democrats were convinced the election didn't matter, and even fewer Republicans turned out than normal, leading to a fringe-right wave.

A good economy is a tailwind for the party in the white house for certain, but other issues are all over the board, and who knows which one will end up being the decider? By all economic indicators, Obama should have lost in 2012 because the jobs recovery didn't really kick in until about a year ago, but the factor wasn't whether people were satisfied (they weren't, left or right) but whose economic narrative they trusted more to get them out. Here Romney's personal history as a vulture capitalist played against him, as Americans understand and reject the old "liquidate everything" setup.

Few Republican pols actually work for private equity, so we were luckier in that case.

Obama is getting blamed (incorrectly) for the economy, but he's also providing massive boosts to Democratic popularity due to Obamacare and to a lesser extent gay marriage. Then there's the Republicans repeatedly attempting to repeal Obamacare, which pisses off everyone but their most die-hard voters, who don't number enough to carry them through. Honestly, if not for gerrymandering (which I HATE), 2016 would be a slam-dunk Democratic victory, with everything else just being details.

Of course, the Republicans will manufacture some new crisis, or bring up an old one like Benghazi, but unless Europe or China completely implodes, the economy isn't going to tank enough to hurt the Democrats worse than it already has.

It would be difficult for Republicans to manufacture a crisis sufficiently large to cause another recession at this point, no matter how hard they try. Europe's implosion will hurt the U.S. a little bit, but not enough, and it should avoid a full-blown catastrophe long enough for the election cycle to roll by.

I predict that the Democrats will make immigration their next major issue.

I'm sure the Republicans will do much more than shoot themselves in the foot if that's the case. I mean look at Trump.

That's the general idea. Keep the momentum up.

The thing is that, with Obama in the White House and no veto-proof Congressional majority, all Republicans can do is introduce one fruitless measure after another to repeal this or defund that. They have no agenda, no goals, no ideology other than "anti-Obama". That won't win them any votes.

I'm just sad about TPP; it seems that Obama is determined to undermine his own legacy.

I can't see that whole tribunal thing being as bad in practice as it is on paper. No nation would sign away their ability to regulate companies in any fashion, and that's what the whole tribunal thing would do. No more mandated wage hikes, no stronger regulations in any capacity. Every law going forward must make things easier for businesses, or at least profit-neutral.

It either has a narrower application than we think or simply isn't very potent. My suspicion is it's meant to push around poor countries and is more targeted at protectionist practices. Still not great, but not an end of government as we know it.

Still shouldn't be done in secret, though.

I mean, I'm not hyper transparency. I know there are a lot of things that need to remain secret. It's just that trade deals really shouldn't be one of them. Unless the thing is regulating transport of technology from a secret crashed alien space ship, I just can't come up with a good reason to keep it secret.

I believe the stated reason is "the public wouldn't let us vote for it if they knew about it," which... is not good.

Is the argument because why the Public wouldn't vote for it, I believe.

"Educated Technocrats know better."

same as with Greece with its referendum.

It is fitting for the birthplace of democracy to ascertain the core principles of democracy against the new "technocracies".

edited 30th Jun '15 4:08:13 PM by BAFFU

Edit: Never mind, thought you were calling America the "Birthplace of Democracy" before your edit.

edited 30th Jun '15 4:21:36 PM by Silasw

Caroline Freund and Sarah Oliver: Gains from Harmonizing US and EU Auto Regulations under the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership

(NYT) U.S. Chamber of Commerce Works Globally to Fight Antismoking Measures (i.e. they're fighting Anti-Smoking by pushing these tribunals in the TPP and TIPP to fight off pet project regulations in the signee countries)

edited 1st Jul '15 1:48:16 PM by PotatoesRock

Something to look forward to?

Britain's election result had more to do with English fear of a potential SNP coalition government.

edited 1st Jul '15 3:26:40 PM by Achaemenid

Ugh, fucking really, big tobacco?

Puerto Rico needs debt relief It argues that Puerto Rico has a grossly inefficient public sector,the government owns quite a few corporations over their, and that some things need to be privatized, power on the island is apparently very expensive. In the past, the federal government supported the Puerto Rican economy by providing tax credits to businesses that invested on the island, but those benefits ended in 2006 and are unlikely to come back. That said, Congress can take steps to help the island in other ways. Their is also talk of repealing the Jones act,which bans all non American shipping from trading with the island, I'm seeing a parallel to the British navigation acts. In my view the Jones act is unlikely to be repealed,given the Unions have rediscovered their balls and are acquiring more power in the Democratic party,and they would friggen hate to have this thing repealed.

The problem with Puerto Rico is the immigration out of the Island and into the U.S

If they had a some viable prospect of future growth then the situation would not seem so dire. Sort of like New York when it went bankrupt.

Problem is that it can't grow or downsize out of the debt. It can't privatize enough stuff.

Congress needs to pass a bill allowing Puerto Rico to declare bankruptcy and restructure it's private debt trough the court.

If this doesn't sound appealing then the Federal Government should bail out the island or the creditors (ala Greece)

edited 2nd Jul '15 9:08:24 AM by BAFFU

In a way, is Puerto Rico in a similar situation as regards to currency as Greece is with the Euro?

No because Puerto Rico's union with the continental U.S is also fiscal not just monetary.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/dailychart/2011/08/americas-fiscal-union

EDIT: If Greece had received half the fiscal support Puerto Rico has, it wouldn't have a crisis. But for some reason bailing out banks is not a moral hazard but bailing out nations is.

edited 2nd Jul '15 9:15:18 AM by BAFFU

Bailing out banks is totally a moral hazard, the excuse is that "we can't afford not to bail them out," which is totally true. Bailouts should simply be closer to nationalizations in practice (if not straight-out nationalization), where the majority of your stock is government-owned until such time as the government could sell it to gain a certain amount of "profit" for the taxpayers, and the government appoints a majority of your board of directors, who then direct the company to go above and beyond meeting regulatory requirements until such time as the company regains a solid footing.