Obama Clueless On Economy...

Obama blames automation and business efficiencies for terrible economy:

When asked if his administration takes any personal responsibility for the current state of this economy where middle class families are struggling to keep their homes and put food on their tables, Obama says that he didn’t create the condition, but he knows what did:

Well we didn’t create the condition. We haven’t solved it fully yet because it was three decades in the making. I mean if you look at the trend lines, essentially what’s happened is that because of automation, because of globalization, you had a lot of manufacturing move out of the United States. Business got more efficient. They needed fewer workers. They had more leverage over workers. And all this added up to a tougher time for middle class families. …

Over the last decade, between 2000 and 2008, the wages and income were flatlined even though the costs from everything from energy, to food, to healthcare were going up. And that problem was being papered-over through consumer debt – home equity loans, credit cards. And then the bubble burst.

So now, I think we’re having to squarely address problems that had been building up over time.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cVyoSCQTxVM"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cVyoSCQTxVM[/ame]

Source

 

Bobbins claim! Its a shame that consensus politics in the US reduces the possibility of correct economic comment

 

Obama's claim summarized is he's essentially saying efficiency is what is making our economy inefficient. Clearly this is contradictory!

However, I'm of the opinion a lot of political rhetoric is about signalling whose "side" you are on (I at least hope our politicians can understand their policy wonks well enough for this to be true) and he's trying to show he's on labor's side (by choosing a pro-labor form of economic irrationality). This can also explain why politicians argue so much about which side of the payroll tax to cut, when economics predicts that it doesn't matter in the long run (short run, sticky wages play a role).

 

Yep, Obama screwed up.

 

I must say, at first I thought he was intellegent on economics. But he has shown that he has no clue on economics. But he is good on military, and his background is in old school civil rights. Which is good if the economy was doing good and the civil rights needed enhancing. The signs of his inadiquacy was evident by his refering to historical concepst and ideologies of the Truman, and Rosevelt era; particularly stuff pertaining to the great depression, the new deal, and other antiquated concepts from the civil rights era.

Everthing he has done so far is to enhance insurance corporations, create more tax burden for the individual States (with his highway and construction plan), and create more tax burden for the americans by caving into the public school system making it bigger and more expensive than it is today.

Fact is, the world is different and the USA is no longer in a global position to do the things he is wanting. I'm sure he has great ideas and plans and things he wants to implement. But with the power of the lobbiest, banking industry, and medical industry, he has no other choice but to obey their commands. After all, the apointees to the Federal reserve, banking and finance committee, trade commission, SEC, and other key economic government department heads are all from the bank, insurance, and medical lobby industry.

Not to mention, he is dealing with a bunch of republicans and t-bagers as well as democrats who are in the pockets of the banking and finance investment industry. And all they want to do, and are doing, is to block any progress for the USA with the specific goal of making Obama fail.


So what's a brother to do? He should just go ghetto on them all. Let his afro grow huge, (*)(*)(*)(*)(*) slap John Boner, and tell write his own laws. and make them his byaatch. He should just come out and say what is the real deal and don't candy coat the real problems and stupidity of congress. He should bust them all out and tell America and the world what is realy going on.

Sure, he may get re-elected or assasinated by the rightwingers. But that is the only way to bring change to the USA.

But you and I know that will not happen. and the slow failure of the USA will continue.

 

given the chance Obama would even blame evil spirits for the bad economy

 

True, but Barry is just telling us what we allready know. Now that corporations can make more with less (efficintcy), they will never get back on the Pipe (unions).

 

Franlky, I'm supprised that it took US corporations this long to innovate. The manufacturing technology has been around for over a decade. Countries like China, Japan, and Germany have been using it for a long time.

 

The US has a labour demand too skewed towards low paid, low skilled labour. That reflects a structural deficiency that consensus politics will ignore. The alternatives, however, are worse. Fake libertarians, using laissez faire snake oil to manipulate the right wing herd, would only inflame the problem further

 

Is it the labor demand that is skewed toward low pay, or labor supply skewed toward uneducated (by their own choice) and unskilled? If you look at house hold incomes in the US, there are two peaks, one below $30K per year, and a smaller one centered on $80K per year. Even during this downturn, higher paid jobs have a lower unemployment rate, many go unfilled due to lack of suitable applicants.

The fake liberals are doing far more damage by borrowing trillions, not for investment, but to retain politican power by putting as many on the dole as possible.

 

Its not possible to understand low skill equilibria with reference to supply side limitations. Demand dominates. Its not surprising that these problems are displayed in Anglo-Saxon economies with their tendency towards 'labour market flexibility'

 

?!? If demand dominates, then the demand for higher skill wouldn't go wanting.

The demand for low skill labor is low, as most is met by automation and off shore labor. Yet, the free K-12, low cost universities, and trade schools are shunned because the (falsely named) liberals convinced the low skilled, this isn't their fault.

Of course, they don't happen anywhere else.

 

You're not understanding the concept. A low skilled equilibria reflects profit opportunities from filling low paid positions. Its a long term deficiency arguably created through labour market flexibility.

 

You're not understanding the concept that the (falsely called) liberals have convinced the mass of low skilled that they are owed high paying jobs, when none exist.

Therefore, the profit opportunities from filling low paid positions, are better served off shore, with automation, or illegal immigrants.

There is "market flexibility" for the low skilled to become high skilled. K-12 is free, Junior college's provide low cost credits acceptable as general ed to 4 years schools, and student loans allow trade school and university education with no cost until after graduation.

 

What on earth are you trying to say? Low skilled equilibrium has nothing to do with liberalism (it can, however, be linked to neo-liberalism)

Economies with low skilled equilibria, not surprisingly, also exhibit low social mobility. Class ridden economies such as the UK and the US demonstrate that

 

What do you think (falsely named) liberal are?

Class ridden? Maybe in UK. Falling for Democratic talking points I see.....

Our poor come from all nationalities, with far more poor being white than minority. A good number of our rich are first generation immigrants (that aren't afraid of education and a little work).

 

You stated it. Get defining. You won't be able to use my original comment as that described a misrepresentation of political economy (where coercion in economic relations is ignored because of political considerations)

The US apes the Brits

So you'd go with the common right wing premise that US immobility reflects American fecklessness? Such anti-Americanism is way too common

 

Wrong on all counts.

 

I see you couldn't defend your 'argument'. Shame

 

Defend my statements against what? Do you think you were making any kind of persuasive counter? If so, you are sadly mistaken.

 

I've merely been inconvenient and referred to economic reality. The US does indeed ape the limey social immobility. I've also coupled that with comments that, if you did reply with anything of note, would only describe the emptiness of your argument. You wouldn't be able to adapt the 'fake libertarian' (as you have no political economy to refer to) and you would have to be anti-American (as you accuse American culture, compared to 'welfare state generous' Europe, of generating fecklessness)

 

More generalized ramblings and braggadocio with no content.

 

Your attempt at dodge is very poor (not sure if that's a complement). Can you deny, with evidence, that the US apes the limey social immobility? Nope. Can you provide a political economic definition for your previous reference to fake liberals? Nope again. Can you admit an anti-Americanism, where cultural effects leads to a level of fecklessness unseen in welfare-generous Europe? I wouldn't recommend it!

 

That's Reiver standard operating procedure.

IMO, he's just another angry troll.

 

You constantly ask for "proof", while providing none - ROTFL.

This post isn't filled with your usual buzz words, interesting....