New Posts
  • Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?

Trump loses to Obama...in monthly job gains

Raoul_Luke

I feel a bit lightheaded. Maybe you should drive.
so you found one individual who seems to agree with you and think you have proven something important. what about the people she disagrees with? she mentions quite a few. are they all dishonest and she the sole teller of truth?
there are a lot of discrepacies in her narrative...and no footnotes to her sources...
What - nothing to say about the complete evisceration of your contention that the leverage rules change caused the crisis? Typical!

Well they certainly all have one thing in common - they are either political or ideological hacks. You have no f*cking idea how things would have been different without TARP. As if the "recovery" would have been "harder:"

Screen Shot 2017-11-26 at 5.13.10 PM.png

A lost decade is pretty f*cking "hard" if you ask me. Bush's economy was bad, but Obama managed to come up with an economic performance that made Bush's look stellar. You keep rating my posts "funny" but you are the joke...
 

Raoul_Luke

I feel a bit lightheaded. Maybe you should drive.
The Communist Manifesto on the issue, 35 years before the birth of Keynes:

Modern bourgeois society, with its relations of production, of exchange and of property, a society that has conjured up such gigantic means of production and of exchange, is like the sorcerer who is no longer able to control the powers of the nether world whom he has called up by his spells. For many a decade past the history of industry and commerce is but the history of the revolt of modern productive forces against modern conditions of production, against the property relations that are the conditions for the existence of the bourgeois and of its rule. It is enough to mention the commercial crises that by their periodical return put the existence of the entire bourgeois society on its trial, each time more threateningly. In these crises, a great part not only of the existing products, but also of the previously created productive forces, are periodically destroyed. In these crises, there breaks out an epidemic that, in all earlier epochs, would have seemed an absurdity — the epidemic of over-production. Society suddenly finds itself put back into a state of momentary barbarism; it appears as if a famine, a universal war of devastation, had cut off the supply of every means of subsistence; industry and commerce seem to be destroyed; and why? Because there is too much civilisation, too much means of subsistence, too much industry, too much commerce. The productive forces at the disposal of society no longer tend to further the development of the conditions of bourgeois property; on the contrary, they have become too powerful for these conditions, by which they are fettered, and so soon as they overcome these fetters, they bring disorder into the whole of bourgeois society, endanger the existence of bourgeois property. The conditions of bourgeois society are too narrow to comprise the wealth created by them. And how does the bourgeoisie get over these crises? On the one hand by enforced destruction of a mass of productive forces; on the other, by the conquest of new markets, and by the more thorough exploitation of the old ones. That is to say, by paving the way for more extensive and more destructive crises, and by diminishing the means whereby crises are prevented.

My boldface highlights. Capitalist government's don't pursue Keynesian "solutions" because they don't understand that these will produce future crises, and they don't do so because of the clamor of an ignorant public for something to be done. They do it because if something is not done, the economic system would collapse immediately ... instead of being shored up for the next crisis.

Capitalism lurches from crisis to crisis not because of bad policy but because instability is a necessary condition of its existence.
You know you are absolutely correct. If communism didn't have such a dismal record, I'd be with you all the way...
 

middleview

President
Supporting Member
What - nothing to say about the complete evisceration of your contention that the leverage rules change caused the crisis? Typical!

Well they certainly all have one thing in common - they are either political or ideological hacks. You have no f*cking idea how things would have been different without TARP. As if the "recovery" would have been "harder:"

View attachment 38219

A lost decade is pretty f*cking "hard" if you ask me. Bush's economy was bad, but Obama managed to come up with an economic performance that made Bush's look stellar. You keep rating my posts "funny" but you are the joke...
"Complete evisceration"....now that is funny. As I said...she had no verifiable facts...so she says some businesses were over leveraged before the 2003 change, but provides no details. She provides the narrative that must have given you a woody, but you ignore the plethora of sources who she disagrees with...proving once and for all that you will believe anyone, no matter how little the bring to the table, if they support your opinions. So everyone who disagrees with your source is a hack.....but she is gold. o_O

Given that without the efforts of both republicans and democrats...a lot of companies would have gone under. If you think it would have been better to continue with over 700,000 jobs lost per month.....or without GM or Chrysler....your nuts. I can guess at how bad it would have gotten...but here you are with absof*cking no clue claiming that everything would have been great and someone would have bought GM and the whole thing would have recovered in a few weekends if not for Obama....

You just can't admit that you are reading tea leaves to predict what would have happened, if only.....

So ask yourself why TARP passed with such an overwhelming yes vote. Is it because everyone in the Treasury dept and 3/4ths of the people in congress aren't as smart as you? Having argued with you for a few years now....I can caution you against thinking too highly of your own prowess.

Just what was the impact of that lost decade? (since Obama was only president for 8 years, I take it you are thinking of blaming Clinton for two)....was it high unemployment? Nope. Things improved for what about 67 months straight? Trump is now enjoying the continued trajectory and claiming it belongs to him....Did you make less money than you might have? Bummer. The DJIA dropped to about 6,000 because of Bush and rose to 19,000 while Obama was president.....oh the misery....

Keep whining. It makes for great entertainment.
 

Raoul_Luke

I feel a bit lightheaded. Maybe you should drive.
"Complete evisceration"....now that is funny. As I said...she had no verifiable facts...so she says some businesses were over leveraged before the 2003 change, but provides no details. She provides the narrative that must have given you a woody, but you ignore the plethora of sources who she disagrees with...proving once and for all that you will believe anyone, no matter how little the bring to the table, if they support your opinions. So everyone who disagrees with your source is a hack.....but she is gold. o_O

Given that without the efforts of both republicans and democrats...a lot of companies would have gone under. If you think it would have been better to continue with over 700,000 jobs lost per month.....or without GM or Chrysler....your nuts. I can guess at how bad it would have gotten...but here you are with absof*cking no clue claiming that everything would have been great and someone would have bought GM and the whole thing would have recovered in a few weekends if not for Obama....

You just can't admit that you are reading tea leaves to predict what would have happened, if only.....

So ask yourself why TARP passed with such an overwhelming yes vote. Is it because everyone in the Treasury dept and 3/4ths of the people in congress aren't as smart as you? Having argued with you for a few years now....I can caution you against thinking too highly of your own prowess.

Just what was the impact of that lost decade? (since Obama was only president for 8 years, I take it you are thinking of blaming Clinton for two)....was it high unemployment? Nope. Things improved for what about 67 months straight? Trump is now enjoying the continued trajectory and claiming it belongs to him....Did you make less money than you might have? Bummer. The DJIA dropped to about 6,000 because of Bush and rose to 19,000 while Obama was president.....oh the misery....

Keep whining. It makes for great entertainment.
Actually she did - she named companies and their leverage ratios based on their 10ks. You cited the regulatory language and she cited the actual financial facts. You can verify it if you want but I'll take her word for it. It's not like the Keynesian mafia has mobilized to counter her claims. Maybe you don't consider the complete refutation of your claims that the effect of that regulation was to increase financial leverage "evisceration" but we can let the readers decide for themselves.

I am sick and tired of your flip flopping between the notion that without all the interventions the job losses would have continued apace forever and denials that that is what you are suggesting. Make up your mind. The fact remains (because I have copiously documented it) that economies typically snap back quicker from deep recessions (except for the two times big government progressives seized on the "crisis" to enact an anti-capitalist agenda). In fact, that is precisely what was happening in 2009:

Screen Shot 2018-01-07 at 8.02.12 PM.png

Until the Obama "stimulus" kicked in. These are facts that you ignore when you claim all I am doing is citing "opinions." Treasury bureaucrats and Congress are f*cking idiots about economics, as is anyone who suggests they aren't. As for my "prowess" I will let the record show that I have ALWAYS backed up my contentions with facts (like in this thread), while you hide behind narratives steeped in official government economic "measures" and "conventionalized" by academic/bureaucratic big government sycophants. You are the one repeatedly touting "unemployment" rates which is about as useless an economic measure as was ever conjured by big government progressives. You are the one using the completely inconsequential measure of "the stock market" (which can be factually shown to have zero correlation to median incomes and poverty rates) when it can in fact be shown to be ENTIRELY a function of the Fed's balance sheet "inflation." You are the one serially citing complete hacks (like Stiglitz) who have been repeatedly shown to be clueless.

What I actually "keep" doing is showing the complete lack of standing you have in these discussions, and you're right, it IS "great entertainment."
 

Raoul_Luke

I feel a bit lightheaded. Maybe you should drive.
"Complete evisceration"....now that is funny. As I said...she had no verifiable facts...so she says some businesses were over leveraged before the 2003 change, but provides no details. She provides the narrative that must have given you a woody, but you ignore the plethora of sources who she disagrees with...proving once and for all that you will believe anyone, no matter how little the bring to the table, if they support your opinions. So everyone who disagrees with your source is a hack.....but she is gold. o_O

Given that without the efforts of both republicans and democrats...a lot of companies would have gone under. If you think it would have been better to continue with over 700,000 jobs lost per month.....or without GM or Chrysler....your nuts. I can guess at how bad it would have gotten...but here you are with absof*cking no clue claiming that everything would have been great and someone would have bought GM and the whole thing would have recovered in a few weekends if not for Obama....

You just can't admit that you are reading tea leaves to predict what would have happened, if only.....

So ask yourself why TARP passed with such an overwhelming yes vote. Is it because everyone in the Treasury dept and 3/4ths of the people in congress aren't as smart as you? Having argued with you for a few years now....I can caution you against thinking too highly of your own prowess.

Just what was the impact of that lost decade? (since Obama was only president for 8 years, I take it you are thinking of blaming Clinton for two)....was it high unemployment? Nope. Things improved for what about 67 months straight? Trump is now enjoying the continued trajectory and claiming it belongs to him....Did you make less money than you might have? Bummer. The DJIA dropped to about 6,000 because of Bush and rose to 19,000 while Obama was president.....oh the misery....

Keep whining. It makes for great entertainment.
And here's your "things improved for what about 67 months straight:"

Screen Shot 2017-11-26 at 5.13.10 PM.png

It's called "a lost decade." Anyone who won't acknowledge that it was a dismal economic performance and yet turns around and claims it was "things improving" for "what about 67 months straight" is a hack. Period!
 

middleview

President
Supporting Member
And here's your "things improved for what about 67 months straight:"

View attachment 38221

It's called "a lost decade." Anyone who won't acknowledge that it was a dismal economic performance and yet turns around and claims it was "things improving" for "what about 67 months straight" is a hack. Period!
Read the fine print in the upper left....what does "estimates" mean to you?
 

EatTheRich

President
My advice to you is move to one of those communist countries that you love. It's not happening in America not without the spreading of blood.
Move since you hate this country move so you aren't so pathic and miserable.
I don't hate this country. I want to save the world from destruction, which means defeat of the U.S. government. It took a war to end slavery too
 

Raoul_Luke

I feel a bit lightheaded. Maybe you should drive.
Read the fine print in the upper left....what does "estimates" mean to you?
It means the actual GDP data is subject to (future) revisions. Trust me, the revisions didn't change that chart by any visible measure...
 

EatTheRich

President
There are no signs of that. We America isn't a democrcy which again show what little you truly know
I'm saying I want to make it a democracy. Anyway, democracy is a relative term.

The signs that Trump's only view of the U.S. is as his personal cash cow are plentiful. The vacations he profits from that we're paying unprecedented rates for ... the pay for play ... the sweetheart deals ...
 

Constitutional Sheepdog

][][][%er!!!!!!!
I'm saying I want to make it a democracy. Anyway, democracy is a relative term.

The signs that Trump's only view of the U.S. is as his personal cash cow are plentiful. The vacations he profits from that we're paying unprecedented rates for ... the pay for play ... the sweetheart deals ...
all it takes is 51% of the people to make a law to take everything you have and give to the people
As long as the economy keeps improving who gives a sh!t
 

EatTheRich

President
all it takes is 51% of the people to make a law to take everything you have and give to the people
As long as the economy keeps improving who gives a sh!t
As opposed to capitalism, where all wealth flows to a much smaller portion than 51% ... and it's rationalized as the natural effect of a system that grows wealth.
 

EatTheRich

President
bait a switch? what does capitalism have to do with a country being a Constitutional Republic?
A democracy can be a constitutional republic ... but the U.S. is in this respect an undemocratic constitutional republic ... thus instead of being ruled by 51% (the horror of democracy according to you) we are ruled by more like 0.05%.
 
Top