Hi -- New here.

Oneuli said:
I was in high school when the 2008 crash started (actually it started in December 2007, according to the NBER). So, I can't claim to have seen in coming -- although I was already interested in economics back then, I didn't follow macroeconomics very closely. However, one thing I find useful when assessing someone's history of economic prognostication is differentiating between those who change their views over time and tend to be right both on the high and low end, and the so-called "permabears" like Roubini, who hawk defensive investments and so always predict doom.

There were a lot of prominent economists who predicted that downturn, but a really high portion of those were permabears who have that same message year in and year out, and are mostly wrong. A permabear is inevitably going to be right sometimes, in the same way that a stopped watch tells the correct time twice per day. If someone predicted looming economic disaster in 2007, but is also on record predicting economic disaster in the face of tax hikes in 1993 and when Obama allowed Bush's tax cut on the top bracket to expire in 2013 , and so on, that doesn't inspire a lot of confidence. If, on the other hand, someone predicted explosive economic growth in the Clinton era, and slow and steady growth in the Obama era, and also the Bush catastrophe, that looks a lot more impressive.

How about you? When you foresaw the 2008 meltdown, was that a "permabear" thing -- did you also wrongly predict lots of other meltdowns in the subsequent years? Or was it specific to that one?
Click to expand...
You didn't have to be an economist to see that one. Lending 125% of appraised value on an inflated appraisal is not going to end well.
 
Oneuli said:
Yes, I think the predominantly Democratic leadership is probably a significant part of the reason that New York has lower murder rates, lower infant mortality, high life expectancy, more college degrees, higher median income, higher productivity, higher GSP per capita, lower overall crime, lower incarceration rate, lower obesity rates, etc. The quality of leadership tends to make a big difference over the long run. Certainly it's not doing as well as some states where liberalism tends to be stronger (again, consider Massachusetts), but compared to the shitholes run by the conservative ideology, it's a pretty nice place to be.
Click to expand...
Now, now...let's not sugar coat this. Our legislators make the Mafia look like choir boys. Our taxes are the highest in the country, due in large part to our social programs, and a festering tax exempt class.

Still...I wouldn't live anywhere else.
 
Some on this thread accuse her of not using enough information while others accuse her of using too much. Can't please all the idiots all the time...or any of the time.

If you need more or less words to comprehend meaning then figure out what you lack and fix that. Don't demand others fix it for you.
 
Gotcha68 said:
Some on this thread accuse her of not using enough information while others accuse her of using too much. Can't please all the idiots all the time...or any of the time.

If you need more or less words to comprehend meaning then figure out what you lack and fix that. Don't demand others fix it for you.
Click to expand...
Wrong. I dispute ThatOldWoman's claim the OP is a "skilled wordsmith".

That is a joke.
 
Michael Mazon said:
I would have no issues with Capitalism IF the richest country in the history of the world.
Made sure every citizen has a roof,food,basic healthcare!
Till then I'm a Socialist!
Click to expand...

When everyone in this country has SUFFICIENT...then capitalism can be used to make as few as rich as possible.

BUT EVERYONE SHOULD HAVE SUFFICIENT FOOD, CLOTHING, SHELTER, EDUCATION, TRANSPORTATION, COMMUNICATION...AND HEALTHCARE.

EVERYONE!
 
Oneuli said:
That's certainly not my approach. As I've discussed previously, my plan would be to provide government assistance to help citizens at the low end to increase their skills to move into higher-skill, higher-pay jobs.



Technically, that's Plato -- Socrates is just the character he put that dialogue in the mouth of. It's hard to say what the historical Socrates would have thought of it, since he was long dead by the time it was written. Anyway, I don't find his "noble lie" to be a helpful way to think about this.



I'd see that more with the alternate approach, which will leave low-end workers indirectly competing with low-end workers abroad as companies outsource work to cheaper foreign shores, or simply replace workers here with machines assembled by the low-end workers abroad. I think the key to a better future for the low-skill citizens in the US is not to try to protect their low-skills jobs from competition (either from automation, or outsourcing, or immigration), but rather to assist in moving them into a position where they can do higher-skill, higher-pay jobs.



It's about considering what kinds of behavior you want. If you want more people who are content with having few skills and low productivity, then create policies that shelter those with low skills from foreign competition, and, at the same time, punish those who invest in increasing their skills, by making sure once they've deferred gratification and expended time and money to improve their skills, you change the rules on them to hold their wages too low for them to recoup that investment. If, on the other hand, you want people to be striving to become more skillful and productive, then you allow competition from below, but make sure that investments in improving oneself have a good shot at being rewarded.

Do you want a future where the citizens of America are highly educated and there's a culture of investment and self improvement? Or do you want a future where people are comfortable in their lowly ruts and call on politicians to protect them from the challenges of competition and change? I know which I prefer.
Click to expand...

1. "Technically, that's Plato -- Socrates is just the character he put that dialogue in the mouth of. It's hard to say what the historical Socrates would have thought of it, since he was long dead by the time it was written. Anyway, I don't find his "noble lie" to be a helpful way to think about this."
Jack: The only reason I brought it up was to have a common understanding of what my viewpoint is since "genetic roll of the dice" didn't resonate with you. You probably understand the concept of 'Gold/Silver/Bronze' class.
 
Oneuli said:
That's certainly not my approach. As I've discussed previously, my plan would be to provide government assistance to help citizens at the low end to increase their skills to move into higher-skill, higher-pay jobs.



Technically, that's Plato -- Socrates is just the character he put that dialogue in the mouth of. It's hard to say what the historical Socrates would have thought of it, since he was long dead by the time it was written. Anyway, I don't find his "noble lie" to be a helpful way to think about this.



I'd see that more with the alternate approach, which will leave low-end workers indirectly competing with low-end workers abroad as companies outsource work to cheaper foreign shores, or simply replace workers here with machines assembled by the low-end workers abroad. I think the key to a better future for the low-skill citizens in the US is not to try to protect their low-skills jobs from competition (either from automation, or outsourcing, or immigration), but rather to assist in moving them into a position where they can do higher-skill, higher-pay jobs.



It's about considering what kinds of behavior you want. If you want more people who are content with having few skills and low productivity, then create policies that shelter those with low skills from foreign competition, and, at the same time, punish those who invest in increasing their skills, by making sure once they've deferred gratification and expended time and money to improve their skills, you change the rules on them to hold their wages too low for them to recoup that investment. If, on the other hand, you want people to be striving to become more skillful and productive, then you allow competition from below, but make sure that investments in improving oneself have a good shot at being rewarded.

Do you want a future where the citizens of America are highly educated and there's a culture of investment and self improvement? Or do you want a future where people are comfortable in their lowly ruts and call on politicians to protect them from the challenges of competition and change? I know which I prefer.
Click to expand...

2, "I think the key to a better future for the low-skill citizens in the US is not to try to protect their low-skills jobs from competition (either from automation, or outsourcing, ..."
Jack: That's what is happening now, automation and outsourcing. 'Immigration' is just another obstacle.

3. "... moving them into a position where they can do higher-skill, higher-pay jobs."
Jack: I think this may sum up our basic difference here. I think Bronze People have low skill jobs for a reason, ... and, in my view, it is genetic in nature. You, in contrast, think Bronze People can become Silver People, as in they can be trained to be 'Financial Analysts', Brain Surgeons, and Rocket Scientists (being a bit exaggerating here on purpose). >>>This is a generalized view<<<

(I'm having trouble posting here for some reason, sorry to keep 'reply posting' the the same post)
 
Stargazer said:
Wrong. I dispute ThatOldWoman's claim the OP is a "skilled wordsmith".

That is a joke.
Click to expand...

Compared to most on this board who insist on using nothing more substantial than profanity and vulgarity then I agree, she is a wordsmith. But the bar is pretty damn low in these parts.
 
Oneuli said:
That's certainly not my approach. As I've discussed previously, my plan would be to provide government assistance to help citizens at the low end to increase their skills to move into higher-skill, higher-pay jobs.



Technically, that's Plato -- Socrates is just the character he put that dialogue in the mouth of. It's hard to say what the historical Socrates would have thought of it, since he was long dead by the time it was written. Anyway, I don't find his "noble lie" to be a helpful way to think about this.



I'd see that more with the alternate approach, which will leave low-end workers indirectly competing with low-end workers abroad as companies outsource work to cheaper foreign shores, or simply replace workers here with machines assembled by the low-end workers abroad. I think the key to a better future for the low-skill citizens in the US is not to try to protect their low-skills jobs from competition (either from automation, or outsourcing, or immigration), but rather to assist in moving them into a position where they can do higher-skill, higher-pay jobs.



It's about considering what kinds of behavior you want. If you want more people who are content with having few skills and low productivity, then create policies that shelter those with low skills from foreign competition, and, at the same time, punish those who invest in increasing their skills, by making sure once they've deferred gratification and expended time and money to improve their skills, you change the rules on them to hold their wages too low for them to recoup that investment. If, on the other hand, you want people to be striving to become more skillful and productive, then you allow competition from below, but make sure that investments in improving oneself have a good shot at being rewarded.

Do you want a future where the citizens of America are highly educated and there's a culture of investment and self improvement? Or do you want a future where people are comfortable in their lowly ruts and call on politicians to protect them from the challenges of competition and change? I know which I prefer.
Click to expand...

4. "It's about considering what kinds of behavior you want."
Jack: I believe the inherent behavior of the Bronze People and the Silver People is different. I believe it is genetically based. If you take the average Bronze Person you won't be able to turn him into the average Silver Person. YOU ... are a Silver Person, you have drive, ambition, are goal oriented and focused, ... do you think the average Bronze Person has those attributes?

5. "... punish those who invest in increasing their skills, by making sure once they've deferred gratification and expended time and money to improve their skills, you change the rules on them to hold their wages too low for them to recoup that investment."
Jack: I'll use you as an example of my theory. If you are throttled in your 'pursuit of success', will you give up? Or, because of your innate talents and genetic gifts, find an alternative route to 'success'.

I think we have a basic difference in our perception of Humanity.

If I had to put this in a priority order, the first would be my belief that a UBI will be initiated at some point in the Future. MORE immigrants NOW, will mean a smaller share of the pie for everyone in the Future. The people that have been here for generations will resent those that 'just got off the boat'.
Secondly, the immigration issue has propelled the Bronze People to vote for Trump. IMO, they are being ignored, ... or explained to ... by people (hate to say this) like you.

I'm out of bullets, Oneuli. I've given you my opinion on the Immigration issue. It was real nice talking to you, very patient and concise in your replies.

(Now, ... I do have a different issue to take up with you, it's been concerning me ... it's your children)
 
Althea said:
go ahead...meet her out on the board.
Click to expand...

I notice the chickenshit chicks like Stargeezer and Toxic TOP are afraid to say anything to Oneuli. If you think she's a sock, too wordy, too liberal, wrong, whatever -- then put on your Depends and address her directly. Far easier to snipe behind her back and mock her indirectly than to act like an actual adult and have a discussion to her face. Wimps.
 
ThatOwlWoman said:
I notice the chickenshit chicks like Stargeezer and Toxic TOP are afraid to say anything to Oneuli. If you think she's a sock, too wordy, too liberal, wrong, whatever -- then put on your Depends and address her directly. Far easier to snipe behind her back and mock her indirectly than to act like an actual adult and have a discussion to her face. Wimps.
Click to expand...
TOP Derangement Syndrome in full force.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top