happened in the 90s & will happen again in this decade

the OMG DEY COMMIES TUK YUR EKONOMIES song and dance is seriously played out

i just want you to know what the big boys are saying so that when you talk to the world outside the cave, your neanderthal phenotype doesn't cast a foul shadow on the rest of us

http://www.marketwatch.com/tvradio/player.asp?bcpid=275898297&bclid=86272812&bctid=302034025



[Edited on November 9, 2006 at 1:06 AM. Reason : SORRY THAT WAS A LITTLE HARSH - OMG I HIPPITY HIP FLIP FLOPPED]

11/9/2006 12:57:33 AM

Lucky Presidents = Healthy Markets

11/9/2006 1:11:13 AM

republicans=shit

11/9/2006 1:15:14 AM

All the shit from the 90's created a backlash inflation in the 2000's, the democrates did nothing but jerk up non billable funds for useless healthcare programs.

You people should pray to bush for putting the fear of out competition by another country back into the econmy.

11/9/2006 1:30:08 AM

Now, I'd just like to point out that when you say "Happened in the 90s" what you mean was "One of the biggest bull market in history happened during a Democratic presidency with a strong majority of republicans in the House and Senate" right?

Not that that had anything to do with it. You're forgetting that whole dot-com bubble.

He's right on most of those issues, except he left out the fact that a lot of union labor is tied to minimum wage, so wage rises will hurt more companies than those that pay minimum wage.

Generally, the markets don't care who your president is or your Congress as long as they aren't meddling too much. These democrats shouldn't meddle TOO much.

11/9/2006 8:17:02 AM

Markets don't like Democrats. They thought they would like Republicans but it turned south, after awhile. So, Markets, like libertarians, lay awake at night angling for divided government, which we now have. So, in 2008 either the Republicans need to keep the White House or need to regain a part of the congress.

11/9/2006 8:45:53 AM

Yea the markets LOVE when its a split government, because its hard for either party to go too far left or right of center. The markets would go DOWN if the Dem's got the White House and controlled Congress.

11/9/2006 8:47:48 AM

^^ and ^
ding ding ding

11/9/2006 8:52:50 AM

^^ Well, that is the theory, anyway.

The question is wether it will be Gridlock or Logrolling? If Gridlock develops then great, only the most necessary and compromised legislation gets passed. However, "a legislature heavier on moderates and pragmatists, on the other hand, could, perversely, produce the opposite result, with heavy-vote trading that hands lots of goodies to the minority party in order to secure their acquescence in the things that the majority wants."

11/9/2006 9:10:24 AM

Considering how much everyone hates each other right now in our poisoned political climate, I don't anticipate much logrolling in the near future. Sorry, I guess I'm not sold quite yet on all the usual post-election "bi-partisan" promises being spouted by all sides.

Well, check that, I do imagine some sort of immigration reform, but I don't anticipate much else...

11/9/2006 9:52:37 AM

were the markets so horrible a week ago or something?

11/9/2006 12:33:21 PM

uhhh

the market certainly hasn't been the problem for Bush over the past year or so... it's grown considerably since the post 9/11 tank

i mean you can blame the repubs for alot of shit, but the economy, considering the shit we've all been through, has done pretty well.

11/9/2006 12:46:36 PM

divided gov = no regulation = good markets.

11/9/2006 1:52:05 PM

Quote :

"but the economy, considering the shit we've all been through, has done pretty well"

I blame them for most of the shit we went through.

11/9/2006 2:07:19 PM

we're still going through the same shit Kris

the Democrats havent fixed jack shit in the last day...what a bunch of slackers

11/9/2006 2:07:55 PM

they aren't in office yet

11/9/2006 2:11:41 PM

Oh, and I will note that FDR had a majority in congress and passed a great deal of regulatory measures which helped our economy grow by leaps and bounds before and after the war.

11/9/2006 2:11:55 PM

11/9/2006 2:14:14 PM

what? the market is doing pretty well the last so many years if you hadn't noticed it's reached record highs recently....

no 'bubble' talk on top of it like there was during the late '90s

Quote :

"Lucky Presidents = Healthy Markets"

11/13/2006 8:08:25 AM

Kris, you usually are pretty close on economics, but you blew this one like a white house intern

Quote :

"I blame them for most of the shit we went through."

Yes, the tech-bubble that burst before Bush came into office and the ensuing recession were certainly a fault of the republicans.

Quote :

"Oh, and I will note that FDR had a majority in congress and passed a great deal of regulatory measures which helped our economy grow by leaps and bounds before and after the war."

Wrong...scratch 'which helped' and insert 'and in spite of that' and change grow to grew.

11/13/2006 8:32:58 AM

Well, I'd buy land in the Caribbean after the democrats get a hold of Iraq.

11/13/2006 9:06:19 AM

What in the name of Christ was that?

11/13/2006 9:19:54 AM

Quote :

"Kris, you usually are pretty close on economics"

Nope, all he knows are the talking points you get in the first year of economics, the underlying mechanisms (and thus the way real world systems will operate) escapes him completely.

11/13/2006 10:20:15 AM

Loneshark, you know I respect your economics, but Kris does know more than first year econ talking points.

Now, his economics often get muddied due to his ideals, but that's a different story altogether.

11/13/2006 10:41:26 AM

Quote :

"Now, his economics often get muddied due to his ideals, but that's a different story altogether."

Whose doesn't?

11/13/2006 10:47:54 AM

people whose ideals are based on economics.

11/13/2006 12:45:04 PM

^ Bwahaha, zing

11/13/2006 12:58:07 PM

Quote :

"Yes, the tech-bubble that burst before Bush came into office and the ensuing recession were certainly a fault of the republicans."

I don't blame them for little set of rat terds, I blame them for the shit mountain a little ways down the road.

Quote :

"Wrong...scratch 'which helped' and insert 'and in spite of that' and change grow to grew."

I have a tough time believing that all those years he served as president were mere coincidence, when according to you he should have been tearing it down.

11/13/2006 1:53:23 PM

Kris, having a tough time believing it doesn't mean it isn't true.

Also,

Quote :

"Whose doesn't?"

Many economists have an uncanny ability to separate their political, moral, etc. ideals from their economic research. There are very good economists that delve into normative economics while their positive economics is nearly flawless.
Milton Freidman, Thomas Sowell, and Paul Krugman are good examples. They do positive economics as well as it has been done, but do spend a good deal of time dealing with normative economics and are known for it as much as their positive economic research.

11/13/2006 2:17:56 PM

Quote :

"Kris, having a tough time believing it doesn't mean it isn't true."

It also doesn't mean it is true.

Quote :

"Milton Freidman, Thomas Sowell, and Paul Krugman"

Oh come on, you can do better than two radical conservatives and a moderate.

11/13/2006 2:36:11 PM

Radical conservatives?
Moderate?

Holy Christ. Freidman and Sowell are conservative, I'll give you that, but they are two fantastic economists. Krugman is not a "moderate" but he is a damn good economist.

What my point was to show was that you can be an excellent, unbiased positive economist while still having very specific views on normative economics.

11/13/2006 3:18:03 PM

One of the rather amusing consequences about the Democratic takeover of the Senate is that it may be of benefit to defense contractors. Senator John McCain was supposed to have taken over the House Armed Services Committee. He was a particular thorn in the side of many of the major defense contractors, and many believed that he was going to start the next session with an aggressive campaign for aquisition reform and oversight for several of the largest and most expensive weapons systems procurements.

Senator Levin, who is in line for the chair, is expected to be more focused on military policy (ie. Iraq) instead. Also, several key senators from New England will be coming to power, increasing the odds of upping submarine production in New England while on the House Side, Norm Hicks (D-WA) is expected to take over House Appropriations, a boon for Boeing which up to this point was getting nothing but grief for a multi-billion dollar procurement scandal back in 2003.

11/13/2006 4:12:02 PM

Quote :

" Levin To Take Control of Senate Armed Services Committee Defense Daily 11/13/2006 Author: Jen DiMascio Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.) is poised to take control of the Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC), dashing the expectations of Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), who was anticipated to make big changes after becoming chairman. The power shift was solidified yesterday, when Sen. George Allen (R-Va.) conceded his race against James Webb, giving Democrats 51 seats in the Senate, a voting majority over the GOP's 49 seats. In Levin, the committee gets someone who will continue the civility cultivated by the courtly outgoing chairman Sen. John Warner (R-Va.) and someone who is likely to focus more on policy oversight than oversight of major weapon system programs, according to an industry official. Congressional aides from both sides of the aisle describe Levin as a shrewd and patient thinker who prepares well for hearings and is tenacious about receiving the answers. Warner might remain on the committee as ranking member, rather than stepping aside as chairman, a post for which he was term limited. His office did not respond to a request for comment by press time. Two days before the election, conventional wisdom held that the Democrats would pick up a few seats--like in Ohio and Pennsylvania--but that ultimately the Republicans would retain their control of the Senate. But by the morning after the election, that didn't seem so clear. The GOP lost key races in Ohio, Pennsylvania and the seat of Sen. Jim Talent (R-Mo.), the chairman of the SASC seapower subcommittee, to the Missouri State Auditor Claire McCaskill. On Nov. 8, the Associated Press called Jon Tester the winner in his challenge against Montana Sen. Conrad Burns (R), and yesterday, Webb was the final nail in the GOP coffin. That leaves McCain on the sidelines of full committee leadership and several industry officials are breathing a sigh of relief. Defense industry officials were concerned that McCain planned to start his tenure as chairman with hearings on acquisition reform and focusing oversight hearings on major weapons systems that would generate maximum media coverage and provide a launch pad for his potential presidential campaign. Officials worry about a repeat of McCain's investigation into the Air Force's plan to lease aerial refueling tankers--one that led to the downfall of several top officials including Darleen Druyun, the service's former top procurement official. Within his own committee, members are still smarting over one of the last authorization bill's final conference issues--multiyear procurement of F-22s, according to congressional aides. Looking ahead, the shipbuilding industry's goal to produce two submarines per year before 2012 could get a boost, officials said. The New England delegation has been supportive of the plan, and Democratic senators Jack Reed (R.I.), Joe Lieberman (Conn.) and Edward Kennedy (Mass.) are likely to pick up leadership roles, said Cynthia Brown, president of the American Shipbuilding Association. Kennedy, as ranking member of the seapower subcommittee, is in line to chair that committee. Warner, who represents another sub-building state, has also been supportive of the plan to build two subs per year, she said. Lieberman is currently the ranking member of the airland subcommittee, Reed is second in command on emerging threats and capabilities, Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) is the personnel subcommittee ranking member, Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Fla.) fills that position on the strategic forces subcommittee and Sen. Daniel Akaka (D-Hawaii) is the ranking member on the readiness and management support subcommittee."

11/13/2006 4:12:23 PM

^McCain shouldn't have it too bad, he could beat the pants off of any other possible presidential nominee right now

Quote :

"What my point was to show was that you can be an excellent, unbiased positive economist while still having very specific views on normative economics."

My point was that the people who argee with foxnews tend to be the ones who think it is "fair and balanced"

11/13/2006 5:55:34 PM

Quote :

"Yea the markets LOVE when its a split government, because its hard for either party to go too far left or right of center. The markets would go DOWN if the Dem's got the White House and controlled Congress."

I think its a little more nuanced than this.

Rubinomics was good for the market - it is hard to deny this. Lower long term interest rates are good for stocks, if for no other reason than future profits are discounted by this.

Over the past 25 years or so the deficit has tend to grow faster under Republican leadership and there are strong reasons to believe that trend to continue. The Republicans talk a good game on non-defense spending but do little and defense spending tends to go up a lot.

War aint cheap. Quite frankly at the rate we are spending now it might be cheaper in terms of resources to endure the terroist attacks. Obviously there is the cost of fear and loss of national confindence but just in terms of pure resources its probably less.

11/13/2006 8:29:11 PM

Quote :

"My point was that the people who argee with foxnews tend to be the ones who think it is "fair and balanced""

If I am not misunderstanding you, you're trying to tell me that I don't know good positive economics becuase of personal biases. This is absolutely ridiculous AND fucking insulting. I have spent years studying economics and can distinguish actual economics from politically motivated drivel very easily. You wouldn't tell a biologist that their political leanings corrupts their judgement of what contistitutes good biological research. I hope that I misunderstood you...

11/14/2006 7:51:52 AM

Quote :

"You wouldn't tell a biologist that their political leanings corrupts their judgement of what contistitutes good biological research."

It may be insulting but it wouldn't be unheard of. If you did let your political leanings interfere with your scientific beliefs you wouldn't be the first. There have been biologists with beliefs in race superiority that accepted bogus research simply because it confirmed what they already believed.

Now, I don't think you are doing that, but don't act like it is crazy for others to consider it. Take Kris for example: there are whole swaths of economics that he cannot consider because it would invalidate his whole world view.

[Edited on November 14, 2006 at 8:22 AM. Reason : .,.]

11/14/2006 8:12:29 AM

Touche' Loneshark, I guess you are right that it has happened before. I guess my frustration was that he implied economics is somehow more prone to that because it is a social science. It is especially upsetting coming from someone who I'm sure endorses Philosophy and Sociology, which are, if anything, more open to sway from political leanings than economics or psychology.

11/14/2006 8:16:05 AM

Quote :

"If I am not misunderstanding you, you're trying to tell me that I don't know good positive economics becuase of personal biases."

I never said anything of the sort, I simply said that it's quite possible that your preception could be a bit fogged by your own beliefs. Your personal beliefs could cause you two praise one economist and play down the importance of another who did identical things, you're not neccesarily doing that, but I had hoped you would have named someone other than Freidman. I'm not trying to insult you, I'll admit to having biases as well, and we can't pretend we can operate completely independent of them.

Quote :

"there are whole swaths of economics that he cannot consider because it would invalidate his whole world view"

I'd like to think that I would accept any economics that are actually supported. Now I'm not going to take someone's interpretation of specifically picked events as god's word on earth. It's difficult to prove or disprove interpretations, now mechanisms, like aggregate demand, are a bit easier to believe.

11/14/2006 10:01:02 AM

Kris,
Disliking Milton Friedman's ideology doesn't take away from the fact that he's a brilliant economist. He won the fucking Nobel Prize. Now, it is entirely true that economists show their bias in the types of research that they do, but take issue with his research and not with his political views outside of the realm of academia or professional economics.

11/14/2006 10:09:29 AM

I'm not saying he's not a good economist, I'm saying that if you wanted to show that you have an unbiased opinion of economist's research, I'd have picked someone besides Friedman if I were you.

11/14/2006 10:13:31 AM

Quote :

"Many economists have an uncanny ability to separate their political, moral, etc. ideals from their economic research. There are very good economists that delve into normative economics while their positive economics is nearly flawless. Milton Freidman, Thomas Sowell, and Paul Krugman are good examples."

I think what I set out to prove was that good economists can still delve into normative economics and have political views. I didn't necessitate that they'd be views I disagreed with.

11/14/2006 10:19:55 AM

Quote :

"if you wanted to show that you have an unbiased opinion of economist's research, I'd have picked someone besides Friedman "

Let me guess... your 'unbiased' choice would be ..oh let's say ...Keynes?

11/14/2006 10:36:15 AM

democrats = shit

11/14/2006 4:44:01 PM

Quote :

"I think what I set out to prove was that good economists can still delve into normative economics and have political views. I didn't necessitate that they'd be views I disagreed with."

And my point is that many times people will consider views they agree with "unbiased" or "balanced" I didn't neccesarily say you were doing it, and I felt that your point would have had more effect if you would have picked economists you don't agree with, you know, maybe throw Marx or Keynes a bone.

Quote :

"Let me guess... your 'unbiased' choice would be ..oh let's say ...Keynes?"

My pick would be Cantillon for his scientific and logical approach to economics, even though he set the stage for Hayek, Friedman, and others. I definately wouldn't pick Friedman, the guy can't order a hamburger without getting into a diatribe about money supply and the Federal Reserve.

11/14/2006 5:33:57 PM

Quote :

"My pick would be Cantillon "

Definitely a Bigee in fundamental economic theory. I'm not surprised though that Friedman doesn't float your boat.

11/14/2006 11:27:31 PM

My problem in this context is that I just can't see Friedman seperating anything he does with his views on money supply. The guy is a grade 'A' douchebag.

11/14/2006 11:57:41 PM

Keynes didn't delve into normative economics as much as Friedman or Krugman. And generally, his positive economics were fine, only his conclusions were confused (and/or misrepresented over time)

I know we disagree on good economic conclusions, but we generally shouldn't have a problem agreeing on good economic analysis.

And I <3 Hayek...sorry, some things will never change.

11/15/2006 2:40:58 PM

ive gotta start reading some books on economics.

where should I start?

11/15/2006 2:42:40 PM

Economics in One Lesson is not very entertaining, but it works.

Another place to start that is better written and rather entertaining is called The Undercover Economist: Exposing Why the Rich Are Rich, the Poor Are Poor--and Why You Can Never Buy a Decent Used Car!

11/15/2006 3:01:23 PM