Market politics

[Unpilot]

When people talk about removing regulation the problem is always in the details. What regulation are we/they talking about?
Should we reduce the USDA budget because they are a burden to food and AG? How about the FAA or the FDA.
People want regulation regardless of what the may say (or vote for).

I do agree that in many respect's there is a unfortunate "mission creep" in many Gov agency's. So some paring or review is necessary.

On the subject of prayer ....many times I think it is just semantics. I am a non believers in most fairy tales but when someone tells me they are praying for me..well I just imagine them in meditation...which I do believe in. It really does not matter ...but when Bush used to say he was praying on it I tried to imagine him actually thinking about the issue.
Of course that is as hard as imagining the orange one actually thinking.

 

[JRP3]

My guess is that when most people say they are praying for you they aren't really doing it, it's just something they have learned to say.

 

[SwTslaGrl]

I'm really surprised by the US regulations compared to Sweden. After the outline of the building is ok'd a Swedish company can install any machinery inside the building as long as the environmental impact is reported. In the US Tesla even needs to pay for permit of concrete foundations for machinery!?

 

[wdolson]

When people talk about removing regulation the problem is always in the details. What regulation are we/they talking about?
Should we reduce the USDA budget because they are a burden to food and AG? How about the FAA or the FDA.
People want regulation regardless of what the may say (or vote for).

I do agree that in many respect's there is a unfortunate "mission creep" in many Gov agency's. So some paring or review is necessary.

I agree. The framers of the constitution were brilliant at coming up with a system of checks and balances between the branches of governance, but regulatory agencies mostly came along later (as the world became more complex). What we need are checks and balances that keep regulation in the Goldilocks zone as much as possible.

Some regulation is necessary to keep bad actors in check, but not so much that everyone is strangled in bureaucracy.

On the subject of prayer ....many times I think it is just semantics. I am a non believers in most fairy tales but when someone tells me they are praying for me..well I just imagine them in meditation...which I do believe in. It really does not matter ...but when Bush used to say he was praying on it I tried to imagine him actually thinking about the issue.
Of course that is as hard as imagining the orange one actually thinking.

There is a cultural difference between the west coast and the rest of the country. Someone may have said they were praying for me at some time, but it's uncommon out here. I think most people would respond to that line with confused looks.

 

[wdolson]

I'm really surprised by the US regulations compared to Sweden. After the outline of the building is ok'd a Swedish company can install any machinery inside the building as long as the environmental impact is reported. In the US Tesla even needs to pay for permit of concrete foundations for machinery!?

In parts of the US, earthquake safety is an issue. California was the first state to institute building codes after the 1933 earthquake in Long Beach, CA. Since then all states have some kind of building codes, but they differ from place to place. Building codes in Washington, California, and Oregon are all pretty similar. Most involve earthquake safety and energy conservation. There are also some that are mostly moot now like banning lead based paint and asbestos in new construction. Though there are some safety codes about handling those things in remodeled buildings.

 

[slipnslider]

I was raised a Republican to think we are individually responsible for our decisions and that has only strengthened with limited exposure to Buddhism, courtesy of my lovely wife. So don't expect feedback from me. I just would appreciate any advice from y'all about reasoning.

That implies that democrats don't think people are responsible for their decisions. It wasn't democrats who ran the economy into the ground and then got massive bailouts. Republicans are mostly concerned with POOR people facing the consequences of their decisions. Rich people are excused. So don't buy in to those dishonest fox news narratives.

 

[dmunjal]

That implies that democrats don't think people are responsible for their decisions. It wasn't democrats who ran the economy into the ground and then got massive bailouts. Republicans are mostly concerned with POOR people facing the consequences of their decisions. Rich people are excused. So don't buy in to those dishonest fox news narratives.

I want to address this fallacy that the Republicans rode the economy into the ground in 2008. The 2008 housing bubble was the the second of three bubbles this century. The first was the dot-com or Nasdaq bubble. The third is the one we're in now. Obviously, each bubble was blown up under different administrations. The dot-com bubble blew up under Clinton but popped under Bush Jr. The housing bubble blew up under Bush Jr and popped during his term. This bubble blew up under Obama, continued with Trump and will most likely pop under Trump before 2020. This is not a partisan affair.

I've made this point before. Republicans and Democrats have different views on tax policy and regulations but those affect the economy at the margins.

By far the biggest influence on the growth of the economy is interest rates and the availability of cheap money. That is the responsibility of the Federal Reserve bank. The fact that people still take sides against the Democrats or Republicans for the success or failure of the economy is humorous to me. But it is also frustrating because we're too busy arguing instead of seeing what's really going on.

""The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist."

 

[slipnslider]

The fact that people still take sides against the Democrats or Republicans for the success or failure of the economy is humorous to me.

Yes the party in power doesn't have direct control over the economy. But there are trends that show it does better under dem leadership. It doesn't help that repubs do everything possible to shift as much wealth as possible into the hands of the already-wealthy, which leaves less for everyone else, and causes other functions such as infrastructure investment and education to be underfunded. Trickled down economics is never good for the economy as a whole.


Explaining the mystery of fast economic growth under Democratic presidents
"In a paper released Tuesday by the National Bureau of Economic Research, Princeton economists Alan Blinder and Mark Watson dig into data stretching back to World War II to measure the magnitude of the gap in economic performance during Democratic and Republican administrations and to discover the reasons behind it.

They found that the gap in economic performance was, “startlingly large.” They write:

“The U.S. economy not only grows faster, according to real GDP and other measures, during Democratic versus Republican presidencies, it also produces more jobs, lowers the unemployment rate, generates higher corporate profits and investment, and turns in higher stock market returns. Indeed, it outperforms under almost all standard macroeconomic metrics.”

 

[dmunjal]

Yes the party in power doesn't have direct control over the economy. But there are trends that show it does better under dem leadership. It doesn't help that repubs do everything possible to shift as much wealth as possible into the hands of the already-wealthy, which leaves less for everyone else, and causes other functions such as infrastructure investment and education to be underfunded. Trickled down economics is never good for the economy as a whole.


Explaining the mystery of fast economic growth under Democratic presidents
"In a paper released Tuesday by the National Bureau of Economic Research, Princeton economists Alan Blinder and Mark Watson dig into data stretching back to World War II to measure the magnitude of the gap in economic performance during Democratic and Republican administrations and to discover the reasons behind it.

They found that the gap in economic performance was, “startlingly large.” They write:

“The U.S. economy not only grows faster, according to real GDP and other measures, during Democratic versus Republican presidencies, it also produces more jobs, lowers the unemployment rate, generates higher corporate profits and investment, and turns in higher stock market returns. Indeed, it outperforms under almost all standard macroeconomic metrics.”

While that may be true, it would be purely coincidence in my book because it ignores the role that the Federal Reserve plays during those times.

 

[slipnslider]

While that may be true, it would be purely coincidence in my book because it ignores the role that the Federal Reserve plays during those times.

You think interest rates matter more than massive cuts to public spending to hand more money to the rich which they hoard or stash overseas?

 

[dmunjal]

You think interest rates matter more than massive cuts to public spending to hand more money to the rich which they hoard or stash overseas?

Show me where there has ever been "massive" cuts to public spending in this country?

Yes, interest rates are everything.

 

[lolachampcar]

Capitalism is good.
Unregulated capitalism is not.

Democracy is good.
Democracy + $s is not.

It really is that simple. We need regulation. Generating sensible regulation without undo special interest is hard and requires intelligent dedicated public servants (elected and bureaucratic). Until we decide to change our hiring policies, things will continue to accelerate in the direction they are going (which, of course, I feel is the wrong direction but then I'm a dying breed).

 

[Intl Professor]

That implies that democrats don't think people are responsible for their decisions. It wasn't democrats who ran the economy into the ground and then got massive bailouts. Republicans are mostly concerned with POOR people facing the consequences of their decisions. Rich people are excused. So don't buy in to those dishonest fox news narratives.

Hold on, I have no truck with Fox news or the Reeps. I'm talking about my rearing as a kid when Republicans, my Dad at least, felt that way. Seventy plus years later, the Dems are the only ones in power who have that idea of personal responsibility. If I had my druthers I would vote for a democratic socialist anytime and wish we had that kind of name for the Dems today. Or Secular Christian Socialists. Sorry I was unclear.

 

[neroden]

Expecting to remove money out of politics is like asking a kid to give up his lollipop. Ain't gonna happen!

There's one reliable way to do it. Make sure no one person has enough money to buy a politician. Then the only way to use money in politics is to get a huge number of people together, at which point, well, that's how politics is supposed to work.

This is simple enough to do by taxing extremely rich people heavily enough that they can't afford to buy politicians any more.

 

[neroden]

Neroden, you are an absolute monster of a mind. When do you ever get a life? I worry about you as much as I worry about Musk!

Thinking and reading is fun. As long as my investments keep doing well *and are liquid enough* (Dammit, Musk) I can afford to spend my time studying. Gotta remember to exercise though.

 

[neroden]

Show me where there has ever been "massive" cuts to public spending in this country?

Seriously, look it up. There have been massive cuts to spending on public goods, particularly under Reagan and Bush II -- slashing funding for roads/bridges/rails/tunnels, slashing welfare, slashing food stamps, slashing housing support, etc. Of course, they increased money wasted on the military and giveaways to the rich, which also count as government spending :sigh:

 

[wdolson]

Obama tried to get money to fix infrastructure several times. A large number of highway bridges are rated obsolete or even unsafe. He got some money cut loose in 2009, but failed to get any more. We're just lucky more bridges haven't collapsed in recent years.

More and more money keeps going into the DoD and less into social services. At this point Congress is foisting stuff on the military it doesn't want. Here is just one article about it from a few years ago:
Congress Again Buys Abrams Tanks the Army Doesn't Want

The first page of a Google search has different articles on the same thing from different years.

 

[dmunjal]

Seriously, look it up. There have been massive cuts to spending on public goods, particularly under Reagan and Bush II -- slashing funding for roads/bridges/rails/tunnels, slashing welfare, slashing food stamps, slashing housing support, etc. Of course, they increased money wasted on the military and giveaways to the rich, which also count as government spending :sigh:

I looked it up. The data doesn't show what you're saying.

"Total means-tested welfare spending (cash, food, housing, medical care, and social services to the poor) has increased more than 17-fold since the beginning of Lyndon Johnson's War on Poverty in 1964."

 

[dmunjal]

Obama tried to get money to fix infrastructure several times. A large number of highway bridges are rated obsolete or even unsafe. He got some money cut loose in 2009, but failed to get any more. We're just lucky more bridges haven't collapsed in recent years.

More and more money keeps going into the DoD and less into social services. At this point Congress is foisting stuff on the military it doesn't want. Here is just one article about it from a few years ago:
Congress Again Buys Abrams Tanks the Army Doesn't Want

The first page of a Google search has different articles on the same thing from different years.

Defense spending is ridiculous I would agree but your conclusion is completely wrong. Entitlements is where the money is going.

 

[wdolson]

Defense spending is ridiculous I would agree but your conclusion is completely wrong. Entitlements is where the money is going.

The two biggest items in services are Medicare ($986 billion) and Social Security ($895 billion) and those are funded from their own separate tax. Paul Ryan's dream for his entire time in Congress has been to gut these programs. The Defense part of the budget is all discretionary and is over 50% of that part of the budget. The entire discretionary budget is $1.2 trillion and $886 billion is for Defense.

Outside of Social Security and Medicare, the social budget is tiny compared to the big wad of cash that goes to the DoD.

So it depends a lot on how you look at the budget. I don't count Social Security and Medicare because they are separate things funded by their own tax. Medicare goes back the LBJ, but Social Security is FDR's thing.