Jon Stewart Exposes the Media Bias Against Ron Paul

[hadit]

Irrelevant. It continued benefiting the economy through Bush II's presidency.


Bullshit.


Tax cuts generate savings not spending, which tends to generate recession.


Irrelevant. What it doesn't generate is DEMAND!

When total production > total demand, a recession results. Saved money = increased production without increased total spending (because saved money isn't spent), so large amounts of excess savings = a recession.


I would hardly call bailing out key industries decimated by the Bush economic crisis like finance and auto production "cronyism."


Regan did nothing but happen to be in office when the Oil Embargo ended so the Baby Boomers could reach full employment and the peak of their earning power.

End of story.

That's cute, consistent and persistent. Wrong, but cute, consistent and persistent. The next president to cut taxes will see increased economic activity, and certainly will see better unemployment numbers than the disaster we currently have to deal with has generated. The first stimulus, which promised jobs, didn't. Now you tell us THAT stimulus wasn't supposed to generate jobs (what was it supposed to do, pay off the president's cronies? I know, rhetorical, it was) but the next one, yeah that one's going to do the trick. Generate jobs galore. BTW, why stop at $5 trillion? Why not just spend $20 trillion and eliminate all unemployment forever?

[garyd]

So much stupidity so little time. If saving causes recessions then the US with the percapita lowest rate of saving in the western world should be all but recession proof. If Savings causes recession them Obama's new finace rules requiring banks to keep higher levels of reserves should all but guaratee a recession in short order.

The North by the beginning of the Civil war was about as fully industrialized as you could get given the available technology.

If Nafta had anything to do with the economic turn around why did the slow down happen in the first place given that Nafta had already been on the books for a decade by the time of the turnaround. NAFTA didn't turn anything around and there was no stimulus.

[Cyclone Ranger]

So much stupidity so little time. If saving causes recessions then the US with the percapita lowest rate of saving in the western world should be all but recession proof.

Except for the fact we're the world's largest capitalist economy, and therefore can't possibly be recession-proof.

By discouraging excess saving, we limit the severity and frequency of recessions, and by doing the opposite, recessions are encouraged. It's basic economics.

If Savings causes recession them Obama's new finace rules requiring banks to keep higher levels of reserves should all but guaratee a recession in short order.

That's certainly possible, but recession isn't the only problem he has to worry about. Inflation is another, and raising reserve requirements limits it.

The North by the beginning of the Civil war was about as fully industrialized as you could get given the available technology.

Irrelevant. We hadn't switched from an agrarian to manufacturing-based economy at the end of the Civil War yet, so we weren't industrialized. That fact the technology wasn't available yet is immaterial.

If Nafta had anything to do with the economic turn around why did the slow down happen in the first place given that Nafta had already been on the books for a decade by the time of the turnaround.

Because of the disastrous effect of 9/11 on investor confidence.

Also, the impact on the markets of the numerous deregulation-related corporate accounting scandals in the few years preceding it; eg, Enron, Arthur Andersen, Worldcom, etc. And, of course, the bursting of the dot.com bubble.

NAFTA didn't turn anything around and there was no stimulus.

Bullshit there wasn't....there were the airline bail-outs, the national emergency spending, the DHS spending on security, and most importantly, the Iraq War, totaling several trillion dollars in gov't outlays that pumped up the GDP.

[Cyclone Ranger]

That's cute, consistent and persistent. Wrong, but cute, consistent and persistent.

You can argue with basic macroecomics all you want, but in the fight between your right-wing ideology and economic reality, economics has the last word.

The next president to cut taxes will see increased economic activity, and certainly will see better unemployment numbers than the disaster we currently have to deal with has generated.

Unemployment is always self-correcting with time - a fact known as Say's Law - so whomever is POTUS next will see decreased unemployment, whether the top rate is lowered or not.

The first stimulus, which promised jobs, didn't.

Of course it did. It saw the unemployment quickly decrease. Problem is, a trillion dollars just wasn't enough. We'll end up having to spend 5x that much.

Why not just spend $20 trillion and eliminate all unemployment forever?

Obviously, the twin problem of inflation.

[hadit]

You can argue with basic macroecomics all you want, but in the fight between your right-wing ideology and economic reality, economics has the last word.

Right, and lowering taxes spurs economic activity, as we've seen multiple times.

Unemployment is always self-correcting with time - a fact known as Say's Law - so whomever is POTUS next will see decreased unemployment, whether the top rate is lowered or not.

Good, then we should lower rates now so we get both better employment AND more economic activity. It's a win/win.

Of course it did. It saw the unemployment quickly decrease. Problem is, a trillion dollars just wasn't enough. We'll end up having to spend 5x that much.

Temporary statistical fluctuations are not lower unemployment. And, as noted before, Reagan didn't need to spend trillions to overcome the Carter doldrums.

Obviously, the twin problem of inflation.

Which we are going to see rather soon. Sooner than we'll see 6.5% unemployment.

[garyd]

No it is basic ignorance. Actual savings would be invested usually several times over in various things that would give a better return on investment thanwht the bank is willing to give you. They have to else wise the bank wouldn't have the money to pay you the pittance they pay in interest on a pass book savings account. And one of the reasons they pay so little is becase the amount they have to keep in reserve by federal law means they can't make as much of a profit as they'd like and pay you the sort of interest you'd like. This is also why several banks got sucked into the Freddie and Fannie scam. It looked like a way to make a bit more money. After all they are quasi governmental agencies like the post office surely the government wouldn't let them make a bunch of bad loans. In hind sight it seems as if they didn't make any other kind.

[optimus]

So did anyone offer any explanation for Fox's bias against Paul? I can't be bothered to read all this shit.

[jwreck]

So did anyone offer any explanation for Fox's bias against Paul? I can't be bothered to read all this shit.

Something about confederonazis and MLK?

[lily]

So did anyone offer any explanation for Fox's bias against Paul? I can't be bothered to read all this shit.

Well, a few conservatives here will probably disagree, but I think it's because Fox News is mostly neocon (as opposed to paleoconservative and constitutionalist like Ron Paul) and despite their efforts to appear conservative, I think they are pretty much on the same team as the other globalist/corporatist networks.

I've said it many times before, but I think we actually have a one-party system, masquerading as two. The neo-liberals and the neo-conservatives agree on the important things... and as far as the networks go, it seems that CNN and a few others are neo-liberal, and Fox is neo-conservative. But they're all globalist/statist/establishment. And THAT is why they all hate Ron Paul, because he stands against the establishment... he's one of the few who stand against them. And obviously they feel threatened by him, or they would not do everything they can to either ignore, downplay or smear him.

[Cyclone Ranger]

[Right, and lowering taxes spurs economic activity, as we've seen multiple times.

No, as we've seen multiple times, lowering the top rate increases saving, which causes recessions.

Good, then we should lower rates now so we get both better employment AND more economic activity. It's a win/win.

Lowering interest rates will create quick inflation, not anything positive.

Temporary statistical fluctuations are not lower unemployment.

Bullshit. The fact you HOPE it's a temporary fluctuation for your selfish political reasons doesn't make it true.

And, as noted before, Reagan didn't need to spend trillions to overcome the Carter doldrums.

Of course he did. He presided over a massive increase in military and cold war spending and corporate subsidied. ie, trillions (in 2011 dollars) in stimulus.

Which we are going to see rather soon. Sooner than we'll see 6.5% unemployment.

If we raise interest rates,we'll see inflation. We'll see 6.5% unemployment if we spend the necessary trillions in stimulus. It takes an average of 4 years to recover from a major economic crisis.

[Cyclone Ranger]

No it is basic ignorance. Actual savings would be invested usually several times over in various things that would give a better return on investment thanwht the bank is willing to give you. They have to else wise the bank wouldn't have the money to pay you the pittance they pay in interest on a pass book savings account. And one of the reasons they pay so little is becase the amount they have to keep in reserve by federal law means they can't make as much of a profit as they'd like and pay you the sort of interest you'd like. This is also why several banks got sucked into the Freddie and Fannie scam. It looked like a way to make a bit more money. After all they are quasi governmental agencies like the post office surely the government wouldn't let them make a bunch of bad loans. In hind sight it seems as if they didn't make any other kind.

That has nothing to do with our above conversation, however.

[hadit]

No, as we've seen multiple times, lowering the top rate increases saving, which causes recessions.

We haven't seen that. Recessions are a natural part of the business cycle, which government exacerbates.

Lowering interest rates will create quick inflation, not anything positive.

Inflation is inevitable when you have foolish, massive, repeated injections of printed money into the economy. IOW, we will see inflation sooner rather than later.

Bullshit. The fact you HOPE it's a temporary fluctuation for your selfish political reasons doesn't make it true.

No, the fact that unemployment has remained at unacceptably high levels makes it true. There has been absolutely no significant and sustained reduction in unemployment. Sorry, your argument is null and void.

Of course he did. He presided over a massive increase in military and cold war spending and corporate subsidied. ie, trillions (in 2011 dollars) in stimulus.

That spending put the nails in the coffin that houses the Soviet Union. It was not pointless, wasted cronyism.

If we raise interest rates,we'll see inflation. We'll see 6.5% unemployment if we spend the necessary trillions in stimulus. It takes an average of 4 years to recover from a major economic crisis.

Somehow, I don't see TFO being able to match Reagan.

[Cyclone Ranger]

We haven't seen that. Recessions are a natural part of the business cycle, which government exacerbates.

Recessions aren't "natural." They happen when during the growth phase of the economy, manufacturers and other producers increase their production in pursuit of maximum profits - until they ultimately at some point produce more than available demand can accommodate.

Again, if total demand is not greater than or equal to total production, a recession occurs. Government can accelerate this process by lowering taxes or otherwise encouraging saving.

Inflation is inevitable when you have foolish, massive, repeated injections of printed money into the economy. IOW, we will see inflation sooner rather than later.

Sorry, dude. It doesn't take a year and a half for stimulus to produce inflation with record low interest rates. The inflation we have right now is the most it will generate, until there is another stimulus.

And, of course, stimulus isn't "foolish" during a recession....unless you want a depression. If the state doesn't replace lost demand, that's exactly what happens.

No, the fact that unemployment has remained at unacceptably high levels makes it true. There has been absolutely no significant and sustained reduction in unemployment. Sorry, your argument is null and void.

Of course, there has been. Unemployment peaked at 10.4% and is now 8.8%. Unless it rises back up to 10% or so, there has been a reduction.

That spending put the nails in the coffin that houses the Soviet Union. It was not pointless, wasted cronyism.

Communism was in no way a threat to the USA, so wrecking someone else's country was pointlessly wasted money that went straight down the toilet - unlike saving key American domestic industries like finance and auto manufacture

Somehow, I don't see TFO being able to match Reagan.

He'll be able to "match" Reagan if he somehow receives a massive sucking head wound and thereupon loses 100 IQ points so as to simulate Reagan's senile dementia and idiocy.

[hadit]

Recessions aren't "natural." They happen when during the growth phase of the economy, manufacturers and other producers increase their production in pursuit of maximum profits - until they ultimately at some point produce more than available demand can accommodate.

IOW, downturns are a natural part of the business cycle. They become recessions when government prolongs or interferes with what otherwise would be a relatively quick process.

Again, if total demand is not greater than or equal to total production, a recession occurs. Government can accelerate this process by lowering taxes or otherwise encouraging saving.

Hmmm, the economy turns negative, so letting people keep more of their money and encouraging them to make more money available for investment becomes a bad thing? This is a prime example of the negative effects of government meddling.

Sorry, dude. It doesn't take a year and a half for stimulus to produce inflation with record low interest rates. The inflation we have right now is the most it will generate, until there is another stimulus.

You were also quite confident we would have 6.5% unemployment in '12, and that was long BEFORE you started qualifying it by saying we have to spend trillions, basically more than what the jobs are worth.

And, of course, stimulus isn't "foolish" during a recession....unless you want a depression. If the state doesn't replace lost demand, that's exactly what happens.

No, if the state stays out of it, business will naturally contract until it once again matches demand and the cycle begins anew.

Of course, there has been. Unemployment peaked at 10.4% and is now 8.8%. Unless it rises back up to 10% or so, there has been a reduction.

"Significant and sustained", I believe were the operative words. Don't create a strawman.

Communism was in no way a threat to the USA, so wrecking someone else's country was pointlessly wasted money that went straight down the toilet - unlike saving key American domestic industries like finance and auto manufacture

Of course not. And leaving us the sole superpower wasn't cool either.

He'll be able to "match" Reagan if he somehow receives a massive sucking head wound and thereupon loses 100 IQ points so as to simulate Reagan's senile dementia and idiocy.

It must be galling for him (and you) to know he's going to go down in the history books as being unable to match the performance of a man with "senile dementia" and "idiocy".

[Cyclone Ranger]

IOW, downturns are a natural part of the business cycle They become recessions when government prolongs or interferes with what otherwise would be a relatively quick process.

I'm sure you wish that were true.

The reality, however, is that when government doesn't interfere in a recession by spending money to replace lost demand (or foolishly lowers taxes. inflating savings), a recession becomes a depression.

Hmmm, the economy turns negative, so letting people keep more of their money and encouraging them to make more money available for investment becomes a bad thing?

Yep.

This is a prime example of the negative effects of government meddling.

No, depressions are the prime examples.

You were also quite confident we would have 6.5% unemployment in '12, and that was long BEFORE you started qualifying it by saying we have to spend trillions, basically more than what the jobs are worth.

But the hard, cold reality is that we'll have to spend that money one way or another to reach that goal.

No, if the state stays out of it, business will naturally contract until it once again matches demand and the cycle begins anew.

That never happens, because as the economy shrinks, demand does too.

More and more people lose their jobs and have less money to spend - which shrinks the economy yet more, perpetuating the cycle of collapse, until government steps to end it or enough millions of people starve to death.

"Significant and sustained", I believe were the operative words. Don't create a strawman.

That's quite significant.

Of course not. And leaving us the sole superpower wasn't cool either.

It may be "cool," but that doesn't mean it was worth the cost.

It must be galling for him (and you) to know he's going to go down in the history books as being unable to match the performance of a man with "senile dementia" and "idiocy".

Your saying it doesn't make it true..

[hadit]

I'm sure you wish that were true.

The reality, however, is that when government doesn't interfere in a recession by spending money to replace lost demand (or foolishly lowers taxes. inflating savings), a recession becomes a depression.

False. We had multiple economic ups and downs before the Great Depression without government intervention. In fact, the first time the government got seriously involved, it caused the greatest depression until the Obama one.

Yep.

Nope.

No, depressions are the prime examples.

Guess we'd better stop meddling.

But the hard, cold reality is that we'll have to spend that money one way or another to reach that goal.

The private sector is where that money belongs.

That never happens, because as the economy shrinks, demand does too.

More and more people lose their jobs and have less money to spend - which shrinks the economy yet more, perpetuating the cycle of collapse, until government steps to end it or enough millions of people starve to death.

False, as shown by the multiple swings we had that self corrected without government intervention.

That's quite significant.

Hardly, nor was it sustained.

It may be "cool," but that doesn't mean it was worth the cost.

You wouldn't have your lifestyle without it.

Your saying it doesn't make it true..

Of course not. It being true makes it true.

[Cyclone Ranger]

False. We had multiple economic ups and downs before the Great Depression without government intervention.

No, we didn't. Some form of government spending intervention always occurred, most commonly a war.

In fact, the first time the government got seriously involved, it caused the greatest depression until the Obama one.

One, there is no "Obama depression," given that GDP growth has been sustained continously since the stimuli.

Two, the cause of the Great Depression was ultimately the destruction of the global markets by WWI. In fact, the slow-down in global production was noted years before the stock market crash in '29.

Therefore the Fed's policies did not cause it, although in some cases, they didn't help.

Nope.

Yep.

Guess we'd better stop meddling.

There's no alternative since the money needed to increase spending during a recession can't just materialize out of nowhere.

The private sector is where that money belongs.

It's immaterial where you think it belongs. During a recession or slowdown. all that matters is that the money is spent and not saved, so a depression isn't created.

False, as shown by the multiple swings we had that self corrected without government intervention.

Except that's never happened once in the history of capitalism, never will happen, and never could happen - because it just violates the laws of economics and simple logic.

Hardly, nor was it sustained.

Truly, and - given we haven't had a return to 10% unemployment since 2008 - it's been sustained.

You wouldn't have your lifestyle without it.

Of course I would. Communism was never a threat to my lifestyle.

Of course not. It being true makes it true.

It's only true in your imagination

[garyd]

So much horse crap so little time the only reason producers ever manufacture in excess of what they can sell in this day an age when finished goods inventory is taxed whether it's sold or not is if the government compels them too or they get hit by a recession that they had not expected. Excessive inventory is produced by a drop in demand usually in the form of canceled orders enough such and layoffs will occur immediately there after as there is absolutely no point in producing more of what you alrady have more of on hand than you can sell. By the way the exact opposite of what you just stated was the fix both FDR and Hoover tried. It didn't work.

Further, wars prior to WW1 in this country neither lasted long enough or involved enough troops to have any real economic impact.

The Us experienced several bubbles bursting between 1800 and 1920. The longest lasted about 9 months. The governments reponse to each of them was identical. They cut spending. The couldn't cut taxes because there weren't any to speak of until after 1913. Coolidge responded in precisely the same fashion to the post WWI recession. It was by most neasures as bad as 1929 and it was over in less than a year and emploment returned to normal at about the same time.

The Keynesians got their shot in the Great Depression one of which Hoover was as well. Mostly FDR double down on the bad moves Hoover made and added a few things of his own and unemployment stayed above 15% and was above 20% as late as 1937. The run up to WWII beginning in 1940 saw most of those out of work either join the Armed forces or get drafted.

Had it not been for the Korean War, the Viet Nam War, and the Cold War which Kept us at the highest military footing this country had ever previously seen, Keneysian foolishness would have seen nearly permanent unemploy ment in the 8 - 10% such as France has experienced for nearly 3 decades.

[Cyclone Ranger]

BS. Manufacturers produce more than they can sell all the time, especially when they're trying to maximize their profits.

[86Dùde]

Shouldn't you putting up a tarp in front of your window etc or do you have servants that do that?