A A A A Search :
Toledo Talk   (musing about Lake Erie West and beyond)
From pink_slip's workspace   

Turn left for growth

Both the left and the right say they stand for economic growth. So should voters trying to decide between the two simply look at it as a matter of choosing alternative management teams?

If only matters were so easy! Part of the problem concerns the role of luck. America's economy was blessed in the 1990s with low energy prices, a high pace of innovation, and a China increasingly offering high-quality goods at decreasing prices, all of which combined to produce low inflation and rapid growth.

President Clinton and then-chairman of the US Federal Reserve, Alan Greenspan, deserve little credit for this – though, to be sure, bad policies could have messed things up. By contrast, the problems faced today – high energy and food prices and a crumbling financial system – have, to a large extent, been brought about by bad policies. (cont.)

created by pink_slip on Aug 12, 2008 at 11:26:30 am     Comments: 16

print      source      versions

Comments ... #

The author fears that giving any credit to clinton will somehow diminish his readership. If Clinton had been in office during the 911 times, he would have invaded Afganistan , but he wouldn't have created false WMD data, and wouldn't have then fed it to congress. The economy would have benefited by hundreds of billions of dollars put into butter instead of into guns. And the price of oil would not have been able to be sent to mars by institutional Arab owned invetment and banking companies,, as well as those U.S. corporations that continue to also feed the fear of war for oil delivery disruptions. Then there is the corruption, the consumer confidence is so low, America is turned against itself by the corporate and republican politicans. Divide and conquer steal and take, seems to be their theme.

posted by prime3end on Aug 12, 2008 at 01:40:58 pm     #



Read some of this on the plane yesterday...

The wrecking crew:
How a gang of right-wing con men destroyed Washington and made a killing

http://www.harpers.org/archive/2008/08/0082132

posted by jhostetler on Aug 12, 2008 at 01:56:04 pm     #



Turn Left for Growth of Government

posted by SillyWabbit on Aug 12, 2008 at 05:47:49 pm     #



The fact people use left/right, conservative/liberal is why there is no real growth. Not even nominal anymore.

posted by charlatan on Aug 12, 2008 at 07:43:18 pm     #



Or in Toledo's case turn left and left again for dismal future.

posted by Linecrosser on Aug 12, 2008 at 07:54:33 pm     #



For complete and unsurpassed failure turn to the Port Authority for their holy coalie grail of dumping soot into lungs.

"Toledo should try to bring in the types of businesses to Toledo that nobody else wants".
Geuss who.

Silly Wabbit, has anyone grown government more than Bush 1 and 2? NO.

posted by prime3end on Aug 13, 2008 at 01:38:08 am     #



Does disagreeing with you on any topic make me a Bush fan? Ignoramus.

posted by SillyWabbit on Aug 13, 2008 at 07:00:34 am     #



This is a good example of one side having it both ways.

First, they propose that their policies will lead to growth. But their policies undisputably lead to larger government (which is, by definition, less available capital in the sector that the growth is being measured on).

When asked for how these two things connect - creating growth by reducing available capital - you never get a straight answer. The best you get are vague theoretical references whose details are insulated in elitist insults like, you just don't understand how the economy works or you haven't read enough books.

Then, right after that, they will accuse the opposition of growing government more than them - thus taking the position that growing government is, in fact, bad.

Having it both ways - must be nice.

I don't personally know anyone on the right that condones growing government - no matter what their party.

posted by babbleman on Aug 13, 2008 at 09:43:55 am     #



I don't personally know anyone on the right that condones growing government - no matter what their party

Then why do people on the "right" continually vote for candidates who grow government? If I understand Mr Stiglitz correctly, I don't think he's advocating or blaming anyone on growing gov't---only pointing out bad policies (over-deregualtion, bailouts, subsidies) that affect our adversely, and the need to invest in education & technology, and to regulate the markets to the extent that everytime an unregulated-market bubble bursts it doesn't end up costing us taxpayers billions of dollars.

posted by pink_slip on Aug 13, 2008 at 10:20:24 am     #



Several points on this article:

A modern economy also requires risk-taking. Individuals are more willing to take risks if there is a good safety net.

I don't know what to say about this quote - it pretty much speaks for itself. I almost had to stop reading at this point. This really encapsulates what I was saying above about having it both ways and not being able to ariculate the details. The bottomline is simple: It is not possible to socialize risk. When risk is reduced, regardless of how, so is reward which is what the growth is made of. If you are going to propose to subsidize liabilities, the only place you can get it from is someone else's profits. This whole idea, which is fundamental to leftist policy, is, by any measure, a Ponzi scheme.

By contrast, the new left is trying to make markets work. Unfettered markets do not operate well on their own a conclusion reinforced by the current financial debacle.

The idea that markets are "unfettered" is pretty silly on its face. When 20% of the GDP is government, it is obviously 20% fettered. And that doesn't even accurately describe the amount of regulation which has never been greater and grows everyday.

Of course business is in there manipulating it. So it anti-business. There is so much manipulation going on from both sides, anyone who rightously claims that it is all one or the other is either a liar or stupid. When you take $4 trillion and dump it in a pile in the middle of the country, of course you are going to have everyone falling all over themselves to get to it and, more importantly, to make the pile bigger.

Clearly, the problem is not one political party or the other. It is the $4 trillion pile. And anyone who suggests growing that pile is not going to create economic growth. They are only going to create more political chaos and societal divisions.

posted by babbleman on Aug 13, 2008 at 10:35:40 am     #



Sorry, pink - we were composing at the same time. In my second to last paragraph, I was not specifically referring to you as a liar or stupid for proposing that markets are unregulated.

But I don't believe there is any basis to the claim that this financial problem or that financial problem come from over deregulation. For every instance of over deregulation you find, I will find an instance of over regulation.

This the problem - the bigger the pile of treasure you force into the middle, the bigger and more chaotic the fire fight that ensues. No one can say with any certainty that the markets are overly regulated or overly deregulated.

The only thing that I feel is certain is that the outcome of a battle this size, regardless of who is "winning", cannot be good.

posted by babbleman on Aug 13, 2008 at 10:44:59 am     #



If I understand Mr Stiglitz correctly, I don't think he's advocating or blaming anyone on growing gov't...

But every point he makes is pure leftist collectivism. He advocates an active and strong central control of the economy. This is a big ass economy - if you are going to set out to manage it centrally, you HAVE to have a big government. To that extent, whether he says so directly or not, he is advocating big government.

posted by babbleman on Aug 13, 2008 at 11:03:28 am     #



I don't believe his points are "leftist collectivism". I think Adam Smith would be the first to say that some gov't regulation is necessary, in the absence of perfect knowledge. Well..maybe not a complete "absence", but certainly a decreased amount when on one side you've got the power of organized capital and on the other side you have the consumer. When this lack of perfect knowledge tips the scale heavily in favor of organized capital (corporations), the only recourse for the consumer is regulation (short of re-instituting strict anti-corporate state laws of 200 years ago).

The bottomline is simple: It is not possible to socialize risk. When risk is reduced, regardless of how, so is reward which is what the growth is made of.

Tell that to Bear Stearns. And I think this brings us to Stiglitz's point---that instead on bailing out Bear Stearns, that money would be better spent on education, training, welfare, social security, etc. I think this is the "safety net" than Stiglitz refers to.

posted by pink_slip on Aug 13, 2008 at 11:33:39 am     #



...instead on bailing out Bear Stearns, that money would be better spent on education, training, welfare, social security, etc.

I'm with you on not bailing out business.

But education, training, welfare and social security have been the growth sectors in government for the last 4 decades and are not projected to slow down.

As a comprimise, how about we just not bail out Bear Stearns and, instead of finding something else to spend the money on we just leave it in the hands of the people that worked for it?

posted by babbleman on Aug 13, 2008 at 01:01:41 pm     #



instead on bailing out Bear Stearns, that money would be better spent on education, training, welfare, social security, etc.

Have you lost your mind? Do you have any comprehension at all as to the magnitude of the financial catastrophe that is required to force the Federal government to move as quickly as it did in the case of Bear Stearns? Moreover, even if the Federal government did decide to allow the economy to take a massive hit, wasting those tax dollars on social services is only throwing gasoline on the fire. Return the money to the poor civilians whom the government robbed in the first place, and you'll begin to see the economy improve.

The major problem with this bail out is that jail time and regulation didn't come with it.

posted by madjack on Aug 14, 2008 at 06:41:19 pm     #



Whoa, whoa...whoa--you're all over the board there Jack. You're ok with safety nets as long as they're only used with private banks and corporations, eh? You want to "Return the money to the poor civilians", just so it can be given to Bear Stearns? At least Babbleman is consistent with his views.

posted by pink_slip on Aug 14, 2008 at 08:03:53 pm     #