Welcome to NexusFi: the best trading community on the planet, with over 150,000 members Sign Up Now for Free
Genuine reviews from real traders, not fake reviews from stealth vendors
Quality education from leading professional traders
We are a friendly, helpful, and positive community
We do not tolerate rude behavior, trolling, or vendors advertising in posts
We are here to help, just let us know what you need
You'll need to register in order to view the content of the threads and start contributing to our community. It's free for basic access, or support us by becoming an Elite Member -- see if you qualify for a discount below.
-- Big Mike, Site Administrator
(If you already have an account, login at the top of the page)
Yes, another example of government interference in free markets, making insider trading by politicos illegal. I wonder if Mitt would strike down that law along with the health insurance program.
These types of analysis are usually spurious at best.
A) The economy isn't a Ferrari. It doesn't turn on a dime. In most instances, it can take months or years for policies to have full effect or even noticeable effect. The economy is more like an ocean liner. If it's heading the wrong direction, and you turn it back, it doesn't respond immediately. Conversely, if it's headed in the right direction and you turn toward the wrong way, it can take awhile before detrimental policies can begin to get it slowed down and reversed. The real GDP was already on it's way up when Clinton took office and already on it's way down when he left.
B) The President is only one part of policy in Washington and usually a minority part. Congress has more effect and power than the President. Very few President's enjoy a holy trinity with both houses of Congress of their party control. Clinton for example, had to deal with the likes of Newt Gingrich and Bush had to deal with the likes of Pelosi and Reid.
C) In modern/recent history, Democrats = Republicans. They're both big spenders and cronyists. Can anyone name ANYTHING with respect to fiscal or monetary policy that's different under Obama than it was under Bush (or would have been under McCain)? The "Bush tax cuts" shouldn't be labled as such anymore, because they became the "Obama tax cuts" as soon as he renewed them.
D) The stock market isn't a very good metric or bellweather for economic health...as we've seen recently, just because the stock market is doing fair to good, doesn't mean that Americans are employed or aren't underemployed. Additionally, anyone can cook the books using debt (both governmental and PERSONAL) to mask the real cancer underneath. If I lose my job and then take a new one at lesser pay, and I open a dozen credit cards...I could fool everyone for quite awhile.
What we should strive for more than anything is stability. Competitiveness is important, no doubt. We already feature some of the highest tax rates (corporate and individual) in the industrialized world. This puts us at a HUGE disadvantage with emerging markets. Regulatory environment is now starting to become just as impactful as tax environment.
But what's stifling the economy THE MOST, is simply uncertainty. Businesses and capitalists have no idea WHAT the business climate will look like next year, let alone 3 or 4 years from now. The best thing Obama could do to grow the economy is to lock in current rates and freeze all regulatory burdens for 3 or 4 years. Of course as I outlined above, given the gridlock in Congress, this is no easy task.
One thing is certain...our profligate policies and spending are going to catch up with us sooner or later.
If we wanted to grow the economy, the BEST policy would be to slash spending (in order to slash tax burdens) repatriate capital and jobs from abroad by making our own shores the most attractive places to START new business ventures and to manufacture goods. Then we need to address the stifling regulatory environment.
Steve Jobs and Apple will tell you, they don't prefer to operate in China. The labor disparity notwithstanding, they don't even mind paying more labor here at home (US workers tend to have better productivity rates), but it's the agility that emerging markets and China provide via lax regulatory environments. Apple can make a decision and have products ready to ship in a matter of weeks with factories in China. That same process takes months to YEARS in the US. Combine that with stifling union contracts and negotiations, and the next thing you know, you're simply at an agility disadvantage to other companies who are operating abroad.
Americans must understand that for every rule, regulation, etc, there's a cost. Our civility and our social advancements are starting to become very costly. It's easy to pass a law requiring every business operate a certain way or licensing or inspections or standardization, etc...but those things ALL have direct and indirect costs.
In summary, in recent history, it doesn't matter whether it's Democrat or Republican. Both spend beyond our means. Both tax too much. Both keep piling on Federal regulations and burdens which drive business overseas. Both are slaves to lobbyists and banks and corporations which have the resources to circumvent or marginalize regulatory burdens (or shape regulations to their competitive advantage).
I don't know how anyone can knock capitalism or say it's the problem, we haven't tried it in decades.
"A dumb man never learns. A smart man learns from his own failure and success. But a wise man learns from the failure and success of others."
If anyone knows of a similar historical chart that is based on house/senate majority, instead of sitting President, I would like to take a look at it. I think that is more telling than simply looking at the President.
The tea party got squashed just like Ron Paul by the RINOs (Republican in Name Only) and entrenched, old guard of the GOP.
The media does a masterful job at presenting the current choices (Obama and Romney) as appreciably different and contrasting on policy, but again, on anything REALLY significant, they're virtually the same. Romney talks a good game, but his past says he's just a good liar. Ryan talks a good game too, and low and behold, his voting record is awash with typical big government Republican decisions.
Only in America, can the debt be growing at an exponential rate, and a Republican step up and call reductions to the pace of growth a "cut" and portray himself as a fiscal conservative.
None of them will touch the drug war issue, because they're cowards. They know that it would be unpopular with some and that if we legalized drugs today, 90% of the counties across the nation would be bankrupt within a year (unless they had MASSIVE layoffs of police, prison and court employees). Like DUI's the government doesn't WANT to stop it, they simply want to make money from it. It's a form of legalized extortion. If someone is an alcoholic, we call it a disease and we treat them. If someone is a drug addict, we throw them in jail. The US has the highest incarceration rate of ANY nation in the world. It's insanity...especially when you look at who the chief lobbyists for drug laws are (police unions, private prison corporations, etc).
Don't even get me started with the insane policy on Hemp. We could fuel the entire nation off the oil provided with just 6% of the land use in Hemp. It's clean and renewable, carbon neutral, it has no narcotic value (but it LOOKs like cannibus)...it's used in everything from textiles to thermal efficient building materials to composite materials. Henry Ford built an auto made extensively of Hemp panels and products and was going to run it off hemp oil over a half a century ago. But the oil and timber industries lobbied against it.
When we ignore the Constitution, out of an effort for convenience or perceived security, we simply open the door wider for the government to give is terribly ineffective and corrupt policies...in everything from taxes, to regulations and laws. The degredation of the profession of law and journalism are partly to blame. Journalists don't tell the truth and judges apparently, never read or studied the Constitution.
A judge rules that it's unConstitutional to deny an illegal immigrant emergency healthcare or public education, or state paid legal counsel, but if you asked them if it's okay for an illegal to buy and own a firearm, they'd scream absolutely not. If you asked them if it's okay for an illegal to vote, they'd say no. The logic among the judiciary is simply absurd.
"A dumb man never learns. A smart man learns from his own failure and success. But a wise man learns from the failure and success of others."
Link posted from local radio talk station. re: Obama's "you didn't build that business" gaff.
Amusing if nothing else.. the start of this week kicks off the "convention" on "class warfare".
