Obama Clueless On Economy...

Yup...it's called 'hypocrisy'.

 

Proof? Are you denying that you can't provide a definition for your use of 'fake liberal'? That's just matter of fact. Are you denying that Western Europe has more generous welfare states? I'd find that amusing. Perhaps its the US's lack of social mobility? Try:

Gangl (2005, Income Inequality, Permanent Incomes, and Income Dynamics: Comparing Europe to the United States, Work and Occupations, Vol. 32 No. 2, pp. 140-162): “n most of Europe, real income growth was actually higher than in the United States, many European countries thus achieve not just less income inequality but are able to combine this with higher levels of income stability, better chances of upward mobility for the poor, and a higher protection of the incomes of older workers than common in the United States”.

Corak (2004, Do poor children become poor adults?, Lessons for public policy from a cross country comparison of generational earnings mobility): "The United Kingdom, the United States, and to a slightly lesser extent France, are the least mobile countries with 40 to 50% of the earnings advantage high income young adults have over their low income counterparts being associated with the fact that they were the children of higher earning parents."

Blanden et al (Intergenerational Mobility in Europe and North America): "the extent of intergenerational mobility for sons is lowest in the UK and US, is at intermediate levels for West Germany and is highest for the Scandinavian countries"

 

Do you understand the term liberal, used 100 years ago in the US, and many places on the planet today, is virtually opposite to the bastardization of the word liberal by the progressives in the US?

Like Greece? ROTFL.

Europe's love affair with socialism is coming to an end because they are running out of other peoples money. European debt is effecting the world economy.

Europeans have been too generous, now they pay the price.

The US will follow suit. Us baby boomers depleat SSI and Medicare. The dollar will lose it's place as world currency, so we can't inflate our way out of debt. The children who will be faced with the debt and default will join John Galt - why work so hard to pay 90% in taxes.

All your studies prove is during a snapshot in time, productivity grew fast enough to afford every increasing socialism.

That time is over.

 

Sorry, but that's a basic ignorance of political economy. Classical liberalism has long since died. Those that try and steal the term, such as those infected by the Austrian school, adopt utopianism in order to hide from the economic coercion that their dogma would ensure.

You again make ridiculous comment. Europe is dominated by liberal democracy and social democracy. To confuse that mixed economy capitalism with socialism is ludicrous.

Welfare state provision has ensured greater individualism, with higher self-employment and skills investment. These results would of course be disagreeable to those that tacitly support class limitation (as demonstrated by the right wing in both Britain and the US).

Actually they adopt numerous methodologies and of course include extensive panel analysis. Why do you think the US is so immobile and apes Britain? Answer this time. You're just not good enough at the dodge

 

Austrian school stole the term liberal? Which left wing blog did you get that from?

You keep trying to put socialism controls on business and call it capitalism. That, dear sir is truely ludicrous.

Just how do you expect the welfare state to survive with no money? The slowed economy increases the welfare states expense, and slowed the income. Greece was closest to the tipping point, the rest of Europe isn't far behind.

Lets see, in Greece, you can make a living wage as a hair dresser, and due to the toxins encountered, retire on the state at 50. 70 to 80 years of life, paid for with 30 years of work? Is that what you call social mobility?

The US is immobile because the progressives keep telling the poor they are owed a living, that they would provide but for those evil conservatives (that keeps the progressive politicians in office). So, the poor sit around waiting for the Obama bucks they are "owed".

 

To return to the topic;


Owebama has not only displayed ignorance of economics, but history as well.

Claiming, as he has recently, that he is the fourth best president in history ignores the accomplishments of Washington, Jefferson [who tripled the size of the country and bested Bonaparte], Theodore Roosevelt who completed the Panama canal, opened trade with Japan and established the US as a 'player' on the international scene with a Navy to rival Britain. It also ignores one guy who ended the cold war, Ronald Reagan.

Owebama displayed off teleprompter ignorance in the past on this very topic, asserting that unemployment was caused by bank ATM's.

He is clearly not the mental giant he has claimed to be and it is high time the American people demanded to see his school records, which, in an unprecedented move, he has had sealed.

If the press can wander through four years of emails of private citizen Sarah Palin, it's time Owebama came clean about his education.

 

They use it themselves. You'll find the Austrian wannabes on here crow that they are classical liberals (as they hide from the inconvenience of economic reality). They wouldn't appreciate, however, that the likes of Adam Smith would find more common ground with egalitarians.

Socialism and capitalism are mutually exclusive. Try to make some sense!

The countries used in the international comparisons all 'have money'. You picked on Euro-threatening Greece because you wanted to ignore the evidence presented. It was a low brow response.

You continue to make no sense. We have European countries, including Germany and selected Scandinavian countries, with much more generous welfare systems. You'd like to rant about a welfare dependence, but its inconsistent with the international evidence. The US, with its neo-liberalism and an ineffective non-generous welfare system, apes the class ridden Brits in social immobility. You can't explain that as its incompatible with your dogma

So let's summarise. You can't dodge. You can't support your argument. You cannot refer to empirical evidence.

 

We do know, however, that most economists are liberal orientated. In a nutshell, if you support a right wing candidate you're going to struggle to defend yourself with sound economic comment

 

LOL! So you're saying that liberal orientated economists provide "sound economic comment." What a great idea for a sig line. Thanks for the laugh.

 

What?

Know what? If you have access to any scholastic information on Owebama I suggest you provide it. Please post links and cite references. Saying so does not make it so, which is the point of the OP.

And while we're at it, could you supply a clear definition of "skill equilibria"? Throwing quasi Latin phraseology around may make you look smart, but as the word "equalibria' is not in Webster's unabridged I have a suspicion it's something you invented.

 

Great post, IMO.

 

Ah...

Not to be a nit picker, but I have re-checked and "orientated" is not a word. I believe you meant to say "oriented".

Just trying to assist you in being more clear in your posts.

 

You clearly haven't understood my post. Re-read it. It refers to the nature of the economics profession and how its skewed towards liberalism. For an example see Klein

The problem with right wingers is that they are forced to adopt a non-economic dogma. That makes the whine over Obama all the more amusing. They should be voting for him!

 

Crikey you do like to go hardcore when you're wrong! Its in the OED and they're just a little bit more clued up than you when it comes to the English language

 

Since you state this in a matter-of-fact manner, then I assume you have plenty of unbiased, factual evidence to back it up.

So either provide the link to that specific evidence (and not just some general link to a blog/book/paper, etc.. A link to the actual evidence) or your above statement means (in essence) nothing and your reputation takes another 'hit'.


Note to board: No way (imo) he provides an appropriate link. He will probably just come back with an insult/put down, ask me for 'proof' of something else (to try and deflect my request) and end with another insult.
Or something along those general lines.

 

I'm actually stating the obvious. Economics and right wing thought doesn't go well together. Crikey, even Adam Smith would sit more comfortable with Obama than the fellows that tell you what to think

 

Gordon Bennett!!!

Now you are pre-supposing to tell us what President Obama feels?

Is there no end to your arrogance?

 

Not when your highest aspiration is the welfare state.

Obama doesn't tell me what to think? ROTFL Progressives always know what is best for everyone else.

 

To understand welfare state effects you'd need to know a little economics, from the fallacy of assuming work is neutral (providing a means to transfer from two 'goods', leisure to consumption) to the impact of risk on the self-employment decision.

We know that right wingers go hand in hand with the authoritarian personality. But we do have different flavours. The 'followers' that derive the 'Fox Effect', for example, are distinct from those abusing the Austrian tag. They're united though by a disregard of economic analysis. Austrian wannabes, for example, aren't even aware of basic supply and demand theory

 

So, your highest aspiration is the welfare state.

You mean like Hitler, Mao, Stalin and Lennin?

Who are the right wing equivalents?

So we are all on the same page, define Austrian school of economics.

 

Get it right now. You're referring to the welfare state when you cannot actually understand the economic effects.

A crackpot 'marginal' school that, whilst incapable of providing a coherent theory of the firm or understand the labour market, has been able to herd the right wing 'willing' into making vacuous remark on internet forum

 

Okay folks! There it is...Reiver's official definition of the Austrian School of Economics.

 

What part of the train wreck that is the European economy is related to the welfare state?

This explains a lot.

As far as vacuous remarks, is this the pot calling the kettle black? ROTFL

 

You don't know the effects of the welfare state. You're making dogmatic remark based on nothing but hot air. Don't you think it would be a jolly good idea to first try and respond to the simple references to work neutrality and risk?

You fail to respond again. Can you deny that the Austrians lack a coherent theory of the firm? Nope! Can you deny that they have a low powered understanding of the labour market? Nope.

I have always maintained that there are aspects from Austrian economics that genuinely has value. To have a balanced understanding of Coase (and the new institutionalist analysis into the boundaries of the firm) we will have to refer to Hayek (and the negative effects that can occur from the visible hand). However, on this forum we tend to just get the shallow arguments: e.g. the mises.org zombification and the youtube blinkering. Any attempt to refer to political economy has been ditched

 

I don't know the effects of the welfare state? I live in the Peoples Republic of California. It will probably fall after Greece, and before Germany.

Austrians understand the economy too complex to be reduced theories.

There are aspects to many people that contributed to economics worth noting. Keynes paradox of thrift for example.

You don't see how your posts filled with buzz words and derision are every bit as bad?