PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS

author=Deckiller
I will say, as a wannabe centrist pleb who is prone to emotional reactions and who has no real political know-how, that I find it ironic that the conservatives have increased spending at higher rates than the liberals.

Politicians don't always get to do all the things they say they want to do. Their policies get obstructed, they make concessions or compromises, or sometimes they just promise too much (or if you're a cynic, they just outright lie.) If Reagan had done all the things he said he was going to do we'd likely have very low National Debt right now!

author=S. F. LaValle
The efficacy of Obama's stimulus is debatable; the efficacy of the auto bailout is pretty irrefutable. None of these are things he wanted to do. The economy was in great recession, and these things were needed. Most economists agree his actions saved jobs.

Yet, while spending this money, he still managed to slow government spending by a significant amount. The deficit is what it was when he took office; when's the last time that happened? How can his spending be considered anything but responsible? I'd seriously like to know what policies of his are killing businesses.

Also, linking Obama's debt to GDP is flawed; GDP tanked with the recession which is obviously not Obama's doing.

Yikes, there is absolutely no one else on the fiscal conservative, or hayek/austrian economic philosophy in this thread except me. This is difficult odds. But as they say, most people thought the world was flat at a time. Seems pretty boring just having a giant echo chamber, so let's bring some balance to the table.

You have been told that everything that the federal reserve and the federal government did was necessary, and you apparently did not question it... perhaps since Democrats were the ones who told you what to believe? The fiscal crisis of late 2008 was a ridiculously complex event. Let's talk about the auto bailouts. It involved a variety of factors, from overpowering unions, to plain bad business. It is not as simple as "capitalism doesn't work, so government needs to buy and own industry" like we were lead to believe.

The other vital half of capitalism is loss. It is absolutely necessary for failed/bad things to die, so that successful things can grow. It is organic, and natural. Prices became "real" and stable. It follows peoples' natural demands, thousands and millions of decisions, not politically-motivated, arbitrary decisions by a few people in Washington DC. When GM became insolvent, it became a money black hole. This black hole was built over years of bad decision making by business and government, and set up unsustainable circumstances. That specific company required restructuring. The demand for cars did not, and will not go away. GM's massive, invaluable infrastructure did not go away. Yes, people would have lost their jobs. (They still did with the bailout.) People lose, and gain jobs all the time. Since the demand for cars did not, and will not go away, the demand for auto industry professionals did not, and will not either.

Then we have bank bailouts. Bad mortgages made possible by Fannie/Freddie and other such quasi-government entities. Risk passed along to the taxpayer, incentive for responsibility taken away from private financial institutions. (Inb4 "Unfounded." I have a FINRA securities certification that requires specific knowledge of these regulations.) Government sleeping with corporations to make a mess, then capitalism getting all of the blame.

What's crazy about how Democrats blindly support huge bailouts is how it is completely antithetical to everything else they claim. 800 billion for banks? The biggest banks in the world? So, trickle-down economics are okay when a Democrat does it? Why not bail out student loans? There was at one point 1 trillion in student loans, probably more now. Wouldn't that get more money into the hands of the POOREST of us, so we little people can be free to spend money on what we want?

And on "government spending = good", why not spend 2 trillion? Or 20 trillion? Why not spend 200 trillion and really give the economy a big huge kick in the butt? You know how your main spokesman Paul Krugman literally wishes for an alien invasion to "get some fiscal stimulus", similar to WW2? Here it is! Why not just break every window in New York City? That would create demand for more windows, which provides jobs. Why not take that further, and just force people to turn in their cars 1 year after buying them new. That would create more jobs, right? Katrina and Sandy both destroyed a lotta stuff, creating huge demand for all sorts of things. Good for the economy right? You may think this all sounds crazy, but it is simply different magnitudes of the same animal - government creating artificial demand by setting artificial market conditions and printing dollars. Jobs are not an end, they are a means. Wealth is what we want, not federal reserve notes. Stability and sustainability are what we want, organic supply and demand is what we want, not the arbitrary, detached, populist decisions of bought-and-sold political whores in DC. The civilization was not built to serve the whims of the top, it is great because it is decentralized, and economically free - individuals have power, rather than dependence.

Oh, and GDP did not tank. Debt soared. It's been 4 years. Time to stop blaming Bush. As they say, "Obama president nah." You know, this is absolutely going to come back to bite Democrats in the ass in the future. We're going to blame Obama for everything, even 4-8 years after he's no longer president. It's only fair.

author=kentona
isn't capitalism what is driving private companies to lobby governments for leverage/advantages?

Apples to Oranges. Corruption is corruption, regardless of what economic system you choose.

author=harmonic
It is not as simple as "capitalism doesn't work, so government needs to buy and own industry" like we were lead to believe.

Who made this argument? I really want to know who said Capitalism doesn't work.

What's crazy about how Democrats blindly support huge bailouts is how it is completely antithetical to everything else they claim. 800 billion for banks? The biggest banks in the world?

I'm not in favor of huge bailouts. I'm assuming you're referring to TARP here, which is odd because this happened under Bush. The bailouts happened at his request. If you want us to stop blaming him for things maybe you shouldn't cite things he did as being part of the problem. I don't think anyone liked the idea of giving anyone this money. As was discussed up-thread, sometimes real world circumstances trump ideal compromises and somebody has to actually take action.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bailout#US_TARP_and_related_programs

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

According to that top link, most of the bailout money has been paid back. Most of these companies are, apparently, no longer going to be on hook to the government within a year or so. I agree that the government should not control these companies, and I do not believe that they intend to.

So, trickle-down economics are okay when a Democrat does it? Why not bail out student loans?

Now there's an idea I could get behind. :D

harmonic
And on "government spending = good", why not spend 2 trillion? Or 20 trillion? Why not spend 200 trillion and really give the economy a big huge kick in the butt?

Who said lots and lots of government spending is good? Who? Where? Who said this? Is there a ghost in this thread? As has been pointed out repeatedly and exhaustively in this very thread, the growth of government spending under Obama is going down, not up. The deficit is getting smaller. Even factoring in the stimulus. Feel free to argue over whether or not the stimulus was effective, but arguing that the democrats just want to spend more and more forever until everything is fixed isn't supported by the numbers.

You know how your main spokesman Paul Krugman literally wishes for an alien invasion to "get some fiscal stimulus", similar to WW2? Here it is!

This was a very dumb thing for him to say, but even that article you cited makes it clear he was using it as a funny example. He does not "literally wish" for aliens to invade.

Why not just break every window in New York City? That would create demand for more windows, which provides jobs. Why not take that further, and just force people to turn in their cars 1 year after buying them new. That would create more jobs, right? Katrina and Sandy both destroyed a lotta stuff, creating huge demand for all sorts of things. Good for the economy right?

I am glad we both agree that this is crazy.

harmonic
You know, this is absolutely going to come back to bite Democrats in the ass in the future. We're going to blame Obama for everything, even 4-8 years after he's no longer president. It's only fair.

I wouldn't expect anything less!

harmonic
You're rather selective in your research. Look up "quantitative easing." Corporate Welfare continues on a larger scale under Obama.

Just checked this out. Quantitative easing is done by the Federal Reserve, not the President. The Federal Reserve board's actions are not required to be approved by the president.

So I checked out who was doing it. Current chairman of the Federal Reserve Board is Ben Bernanke, a Republican. This article should tell you a little more.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/robertlenzner/2012/09/27/obama-will-owe-his-2nd-term-in-part-to-bernankes-qe/

The article actually claims Bernanke's actions are a large part of what has helped the economy recover the last few years, and helped Obama get re-elected! The article insists he did not do it for Obama. =)

Article
Anything that improves the economy or financial markets is good for the incumbent President’s re-election, ” says Sherry Cooper of BMO Capital. Even though, as Cooper stressed to me today, Bernanke is a Republican and he did not take these actions on behalf of Obama.

author=Solitayre
stuff

Obama is the president. He has the power to STOP QE. He is obviously not opposed to minting away economic issues. He is responsible for what happens under his watch. It's automatic that you'll find some way to deflect responsibility away from him. Seriously, it's automatic. Yawn...

Also, Hayekians and most other fiscal conservatives absolutely hate Ben Bernanke. You see, we don't vote down party/racial lines exclusively.

author=S. F. LaValle
snip

Hayek says it better than I ever could: Enjoy

It's big post time.

hayek/austrian economic philosophy

This school of economic thought is wrong.
Their utopian free market ideal is just glorified fascism (rule by corporations) followed by a descent into feudalism. The theory is great by itself, because it enjoys the comforts of not having to account for physical limitation or practical application. As such, the invisible hand of the market works wonders until a robber baron buys the land you live on.
Their exemption of the political process is particularly galling too. The whole theory operates on the principle of minimal-to-zero government. Since we, in 2012, are living at the rock bottom of a 30-40 year political cycle, we aren't too fond of government either. "No government" becomes an instinctive emotional response, accentuated by the musings of the Austrian school as it simplifies the National State, the Social Contract, and Democracy, as merely "government". They profess their love for individual liberty, not acknowledging the fact that it's actually big strong government that protects our liberty.

I used to think these guys were the way to go too. But my self-education progressed. I'm still subscribed to misesmedia on YT, but none of their lecturers can go 5 minutes without an example of where government did it wrong. The obvious antagonisation to appeal to simpler minds is irritating.

author=harmonic
Um, Dyhalto and SFL did on page 6.

A brief note : I'm not anti-capitalist. Incentive-driven economic activity is still #1.
I just believe in balance. The US is so far gone with it's privatized-gains/socialized-losses that a massive surge of populist spending is necessary to straighten shit out.
And some jailings.

author=Excerpt from the F.A.HAYEK link
The true, though untestable, ...

I lol'd.

The Federal Reserve System is not "owned" by anyone and is not a private, profit-making institution.

That's the way classical Rothschild central banks operated in past centuries. Modern ones are more sophisticated. So yes, it isn't a profit-making institution.
If there's an official ownership deed floating around, best-guess theories are that the Fed is owned by the banks it lends to directly. Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, etc. Regardless, it serves a dual purpose with one of them being antithetical to US interests. Which leads me to...

author=Solitayre
After about an hour of google searches I can't find any literature or article that suggests Obama has any power to regulate the Fed or Bernanke's actions

He can order Bernanke to print X dollars for Y cause under threat of nationalization. Alternatively, he can just outright nationalize it and do what he wants.
He'd probably get whacked though.

author=Dyhalto
This school of economic thought is wrong.
Their utopian free market ideal is just glorified fascism (rule by corporations) followed by a descent into feudalism. The theory is great by itself, because it enjoys the comforts of not having to account for physical limitation or practical application. As such, the invisible hand of the market works wonders until a robber baron buys the land you live on.
Their exemption of the political process is particularly galling too. The whole theory operates on the principle of minimal-to-zero government. Since we, in 2012, are living at the rock bottom of a 30-40 year political cycle, we aren't too fond of government either. "No government" becomes an instinctive emotional response, accentuated by the musings of the Austrian school as it simplifies the National State, the Social Contract, and Democracy, as merely "government". They profess their love for individual liberty, not acknowledging the fact that it's actually big strong government that protects our liberty.

I used to think these guys were the way to go too. But my self-education progressed. I'm still subscribed to misesmedia on YT, but none of their lecturers can go 5 minutes without an example of where government did it wrong. The obvious antagonisation to appeal to simpler minds is irritating.

Minimal-to-zero government? Not so. Pure Anarcho-capitalism is not in the mainstream of fiscally conservative philosophies. It only serves as a strawman for extremism. It's like me saying that all Democrats want a USSR style communist/totalitarian government and economy.

What's better, the government picking winners and losers, bailing out specific corporations, and being bought-and-sold, or the market, and the entire population determining who wins and loses? Freedom and power are taken away from individuals (the little people) when the market is artificially engineered by government. It has been a very long time since "fuedalism." Government has become an enormous writhing cancerous tumor, not the white knight Teddy Roosevelt trust buster we all know and love. There is no reason why it has to be such a huge share of GDP.



You're confusing not only the Hayekian philosophy, but also the term fascism. You're using it in the place of "dictatorship." Fascism is what happens when government and industry are totally and inexorably teamed up together (to the point of neither one existing independently) to fuck the little guy. It is the opposite extreme (key word: extreme) as a totally command economy (USSR, North Korea) and not on a linear scale, but on a circular scale, where opposite extremes are quite close together.

It is very well-documented and well-known that Hayek favored a strong safety net. Also, the "invisible hand of the market" is vilified for absolutely no reason, because it is essentially the sum total of every economic decision, tiny and large, by every individual, every business, every component of this huge organic economy. To vilify it is to claim the individuals do not deserve the freedom to decide their own fate economically, and do not deserve the power that comes with being able to earn wealth.

author=S. F. LaValle
Let's say we do hold Obama accountable for his spending. Why exactly is he the one getting the brunt of the beating? The debt has been fast increasing since Reagan opened the floodgates with drastic tax cuts. Bush also cut taxes and further exploded the debt. Apparently the idea was to force cuts in government spending to make up for these losses in revenue, but it never happened, in their own tenures or afterwards. Obama is saying that realistic, responsible deficit reduction can only occur with a combination of spending cuts and tax increases. Romney's plan was do to exactly what Reagan and Bush did; cut taxes and "discuss" cuts in spending (without cutting education, popular deductions, or defense apparently). I cannot see any possible angle with which to view a Romney victory as more economically responsible than an Obama one.

The thing people seem to conveniently forget is that we have multiple parts of our federal government. Everyone knows what happened with spending and taxes during each presidency, but hardly anyone knows what happened with spending and taxes when comparing Republican-dominated congress to Democrat-dominated congress. Two prime examples: Late 90's was a Republican congress and a time of great prosperity (Bill Clinton's 2nd term) and 2006 was the beginning of a Democrat-dominated congress, the precursor to the 2008 crash.

Selective memory is very irksome. If the Republican congress does something right, the Democrat president gets credit. If the Democrat congress does something wrong, the Republican president gets the blame. There is absolutely no consistency regarding assigning responsibility to the appropriate parties in media and mainstream culture - it is completely tribalistic. If a Democrat wages war, it's just. If a Republican wages war, he's a warmonger. I could go on for days regarding this hypocrisy.

author=Solitayre
I think Dyhalto was probably referring to the idea that less government regulation of business just causes different sorts of problems. His citation of "robber barons" suggests he's talking about the Grant era, when regulation was extremely lax and it was boom times for the corrupt, hard times for everyone else. Democrats and Republicans are still trying to find that fine line between too much regulation and too little.

Dyhalto's a big boy, he can speak for himself. You twisted your teammate's words in a positive light - it's 1 versus like 8. You don't have to make the odds even easier for your team.

The late 1800's were also the time period where America transformed from an agrarian 2nd-rate power to the world's largest economy. Simply from expansion of industry, we overtook Great Britain and the other European powers. The immense wealth, industry, and infrastructure created by that boom era set up the next 5, 10, or even more generations to live comfortably and have plenty of opportunity.

author=Solitayre
Okay, but haven't you been the one saying over and over and over and over again that the president is responsible for what happens under his watch? Always? About everything? Why the sudden change?

He is supposed to lead and be responsible. Reagan was, Bush Sr was, Clinton was, Bush Jr was. Not since Obama have we had a president that deflects responsibility quite this much. In that regard, he is a child. And he is coddled. Coddled by you, by his cult-like supporters, by most of the media, and by his party. This is dangerous because anything that goes wrong, you'll blame someone else. He can screw up so bad, it results in some sort of apocalypse, and you'll blame someone else. He is immune from the negative consequences of fucking up. In fact, he benefits from it, because it is so easy for someone else to suffer those consequences. If you can't see the danger in that, a government immune from negative consequences, you're blind as a bat.

This is why Rahm Emmanuel said "never let a crisis go to waste."
This is why Chris Matthews said "Thank God for that storm."

Taking responsibility for what happens under your watch, and following the rules of separation of powers are not mutually exclusive.