I Might Vote For Obama

[snarky]

The thing that turned me off the most is that he made the claim that the Federal Reserve causes economic cycles. If you look at the economy in the 1800s, that is a patently false statement.

I think when you are talking about something as drastic as eliminating the fed, you better have your facts in line.

The problem with your statement is that the Federal Reserve wasn't created until 1913

Actually, that's my point. We had no shortage of recessions and depressions in the 1800s (prior to the founding of the Fed). The only difference is that prior to the fed, even recessions were accompanied by bank panics.

We were also a developing nation dependent on slavery, coming off a civil war.

If you can tell me how any of those cause economic cycles or bank panics, I'm all ears.

[birtikidis]

How DON'T they affect the economy?

[snarky]

Can we agree that there is a difference between something affecting the economy and causing economic cycles and/or bank panics?

My original assertion was that Ron Paul is wrong when he claims that the fed causes economic cycles. As evidence, I pointed to the fact that in the 1800s (before the fed was founded) we had a number of recessions and depressions and they were often made worse because they were accompanied by bank panics.

You then offered up some conditions that described this country prior to the fed being founded. I assumed you were trying to argue that those would explain the presence of economic cycles in absence of the fed.

If that was your intent, then the burden is on you to argue why/how those things would cause economic cycles (it's not on me to argue or demonstrate that they don't cause economic cycles). If it wasn't your intent, then I need some clarification on why you brought those conditions into the discussion.

[brothervad]

There is a natural business cycle...this is regardless of the Fed, however by playing with Fiscal and Monetary policy (interest rates, money supply) the Fed can manipulate the periods.

What I learned in my economics portion of my college experience is that the cycle is actually short but painful if left alone.

But when the Fed uses it policies to lengthen the duration of the boom it in effect also effects the duration of the bust. Therefore, it's not as painful, but it lasts a lot longer than if it were left alone.

That is the policitical element. If you are a President, regardless of party affiliation you want the boom to last throughout your 8 years of office (assuming two terms). So you want the Fed to meddle in order to keep the high times a rolling.

Unfortunately, it has the whiplash effect when things are bad.

So the Fed meddles for political reasons and it does have an impact on the US economy.

and btw we again are being manipulated by our government. We no longer factor in Gas or Food into the inflation rate. We don't factor in people who have given up looking for jobs in the Unemployment rate.

Ever notice that we lost net jobs but still see the unemployment rate drop? That is because some folks unemployment bennies run out and they don't get factored in anymore.

Great job around lies, damn lies and statistics ain't it.

And we just buy into it, hook, line and sinker.

brothervad

[SanAntonioSteelerFan]

There is a natural business cycle...this is regardless of the Fed, however by playing with Fiscal and Monetary policy (interest rates, money supply) the Fed can manipulate the periods.

What I learned in my economics portion of my college experience is that the cycle is actually short but painful if left alone.

But when the Fed uses it policies to lengthen the duration of the boom it in effect also effects the duration of the bust. Therefore, it's not as painful, but it lasts a lot longer than if it were left alone.

That is the policitical element. If you are a President, regardless of party affiliation you want the boom to last throughout your 8 years of office (assuming two terms). So you want the Fed to meddle in order to keep the high times a rolling.

Unfortunately, it has the whiplash effect when things are bad.

So the Fed meddles for political reasons and it does have an impact on the US economy.

and btw we again are being manipulated by our government. We no longer factor in Gas or Food into the inflation rate. We don't factor in people who have given up looking for jobs in the Unemployment rate.

Ever notice that we lost net jobs but still see the unemployment rate drop? That is because some folks unemployment bennies run out and they don't get factored in anymore.

Great job around lies, damn lies and statistics ain't it.

And we just buy into it, hook, line and sinker.

brothervad

I would use the word "still" rather than "again". That unemployment figure excluding the people who have "given up" looking for work is something that has been in place for many years, I remember thinking about that during the last presidential election. I think it may be the same for the "volatile gas and food" items being excluded from the reported "core" rate of inflation, but I'm not sure of that.

Either way, I think excluding either one is dumb. In terms of inflation, there's a guy who uses the ratio of "people employed" to "working age adults" as the most meaningful way of assessing employment (Paul Krugman is his name), that seems pretty reasonable to me.

I've never heard a good rationale why the two things that everyone uses a lot of, food and fuel, are excluded from inflation calculations. It makes so much more sense to use pork belly prices or something?

[snarky]

There is a natural business cycle...this is regardless of the Fed, however by playing with Fiscal and Monetary policy (interest rates, money supply) the Fed can manipulate the periods.

What I learned in my economics portion of my college experience is that the cycle is actually short but painful if left alone.

But when the Fed uses it policies to lengthen the duration of the boom it in effect also effects the duration of the bust. Therefore, it's not as painful, but it lasts a lot longer than if it were left alone.

That is the policitical element. If you are a President, regardless of party affiliation you want the boom to last throughout your 8 years of office (assuming two terms). So you want the Fed to meddle in order to keep the high times a rolling.

Unfortunately, it has the whiplash effect when things are bad.

So the Fed meddles for political reasons and it does have an impact on the US economy.

and btw we again are being manipulated by our government. We no longer factor in Gas or Food into the inflation rate. We don't factor in people who have given up looking for jobs in the Unemployment rate.

Ever notice that we lost net jobs but still see the unemployment rate drop? That is because some folks unemployment bennies run out and they don't get factored in anymore.

Great job around lies, damn lies and statistics ain't it.

And we just buy into it, hook, line and sinker.

brothervad

I would use the word "still" rather than "again". That unemployment figure excluding the people who have "given up" looking for work is something that has been in place for many years, I remember thinking about that during the last presidential election. I think it may be the same for the "volatile gas and food" items being excluded from the reported "core" rate of inflation, but I'm not sure of that.

Either way, I think excluding either one is dumb. In terms of inflation, there's a guy who uses the ratio of "people employed" to "working age adults" as the most meaningful way of assessing employment (Paul Krugman is his name), that seems pretty reasonable to me.

I've never heard a good rationale why the two things that everyone uses a lot of, food and fuel, are excluded from inflation calculations. It makes so much more sense to use pork belly prices or something?

As I understand it, the reason for the exclusion is that Fed policies are longer-term strategies and so the core rate reflects the rate that the Fed uses to control the money supply. As for the reason the core rate is more commonly reported, I suspect that is more due to politicians quoting the less volatile number for political purposes.

[birtikidis]

Of course they advertise the core rate for political purposes. God I'm glad Ron Paul has the nads to come right out and tell you how bad it really is. What is really refreshing is that he doesn't just bash the other party for it. He has come down on policies that former republican presidents have had too. That's why the GOP is trying so hard to undermine him. It's all about beuracrats and money and Dr. Paul doesn't buy into their crap.

[AzStillers1989]

Of course they advertise the core rate for political purposes. God I'm glad Ron Paul has the nads to come right out and tell you how bad it really is. What is really refreshing is that he doesn't just bash the other party for it. He has come down on policies that former republican presidents have had too. That's why the GOP is trying so hard to undermine him. It's all about beuracrats and money and Dr. Paul doesn't buy into their crap.

Something else to consider when reviewing the candidates is consistancy... Ron Paul scores an A++ in this catigory for the fact that he has not changed his stance in over 25 years and refuses to change his style or presentation of his positions for any group. I admire that in a polician and a presidential candidate.

[SanAntonioSteelerFan]

I think Romney has a lot going for him. I think there is a lot to be said for giving the very wealthy more $$ at the expense of the middle (and especially the lower) class. Now before the libs get their knickers in a twist about that, maybe they should put down their latte and sushi and their iPad 99s where the DailyKos is homepaged, and do more than the knee-jerk seizure-like activity they're so famous for. Think about it - if the wealthy are the job creators, then giving them more money via the tax code is like an investment for the middle classes and lower - they're guaranteed to get it back "with interest" after the job creators use it for the good of the country. See - investments are for the middle and lower classes too!

I invite anyone with doubts about that to reference how the economy did under the 8 years President Bush was running things. Oh, and don't blame Romney for basically paying no taxes for most of the past decade, it's not like we wouldn't do the same in his position, it's not like we're electing a religious figure or anything. This is a government, not the church, it's not like that "We are our brother's keeper" stuff is meant for the other 6 days of the week, right?

P.S. I just read AZStiller's post about Ron Paul not changing his views in 20 years. That's no different than Romney, if you actually listen to his words, he says he is resolute and consistent, and completely unapologetic about being in favor of America!

[Djfan]

Please don't vote for Obama.