Archive for economics

Obama’s Economic Facts

Posted in uncategorized with tags , , , on June 21, 2019 by andelino

The Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis released a summary report showing “key” performance measurements of America’s “economy” during the eight years of Barack Obama “malfeasance.”

His eight years did more to “destroy” America than any of the past presidents, be they Democrat or Republican. Take a look and let these few “charts” sink in:

Student loans exploded and are a literal time bomb ticking away at the millennial generation.
Food stamps soared as poverty dramatically increased.
Federal debt went through the roof as we added more debt than all other previous periods combined.
We printed lots of money to paper over the monetary effects.
Health costs went way up when we were told they would drop. ObamaCare was a huge flop.
Labor force participation went down as unemployment increased and many just dropped out of the workplace altogether.
Inequality went up and up, as the rich got richer and the middle class shrank.
Median income dropped.
Home ownership also fell way down.

Overall, Americans were “far worse off” than before and were told there was “NO” hope. The country was losing to China on “trade” and our children and grandchildren would “not live as well” as their parents and grandparents had.

And jobs would “never” return.

Now look at what has happened in the short years since Donald J. Trump was “surprisingly” elected President. You can call it a “total” turnaround.

Even the Clinton’s knew: “It is the economy stupid” that gets you reelected. We cannot go back to Democrat or “socialist” economics. Economic growth at 3% solves lots of problems and serves up a true “wealth” effect. Everyone benefits, especially “minorities, women and youth.”

When your “liberal” friends and relatives go on a silly “rip” about how great Obama’s economy was, whip this out—and be sure to point out that these “numbers” aren’t from a Republican source, but rather are “analyses” from the politically “independent” Federal Reserve, performing one of their assigned “federal” functions.

Gaze upon these graphs for a while and “contemplate” whether or not the Obama administration was embarked upon a Cloward-Piven strategy to bring this nation to such a “precarious and perilous” financial state as to justify a massive “federal seizure” of local programs and local governance, centralizing all power in Washington, DC, the Democrat dream.

We dodged a bullet by keeping “corrupt” Hillary Clinton from continuing this destructive “social, financial and amoral race to the abyss.”

Many “reluctantly” voted for Trump in 2016 as the “lesser of two evils.” Many will “vote” for him in 2020 as the “savior” of this great nation that Obama couldn’t “kill.”

Conservative Economics

Posted in uncategorized with tags , , , , , , on July 18, 2015 by andelino

Conservative Economics 01

Paul Krugman, the “brilliant” economist says that “conservative economics” will turn the U.S. into another Greece!

It’s now clear, or should be clear, that the Greek program was doomed to failure without major debt relief; no matter how hard the Greeks tried, “austerity” would shrink GDP faster than it “reduced” debt relative to the baseline, so that the “debt” situation was bound to worsen even as the attempt to “balance” the budget imposed vast suffering.

And there was no good, or even non-terrible, answer given Greece’s membership in the Euro.

But there’s a broader lesson from Greece that is relevant to all of us — and it’s not the usual one about mending our free-spending ways lest we become Greece, Greece I tell you. What we learn, instead, is that “fiscal” austerity plus “hard” money is a deeply “toxic” mix.

The “fiscal” austerity depresses the economy, and pushes it toward “deflation;” if it’s accompanied by hard money (in Greece’s case the euro, but a fixed exchange rate, a gold standard, or any kind of obsessive fear of inflation would do the trick), the result is not just a “depression and deflation,” but quite likely a failure even to “reduce” the debt ratio.

Conservative Economics 04

For comparison, look at everyone’s favorite example of successful austerity, Canada in the 1990s. Canada came in with gross debt of roughly 100 percent of GDP, roughly comparable to Greece on the eve of the financial crisis. It then proceeded to do a pretty big fiscal adjustment — 6 percent of GDP according to the IMF’s measure of the structural balance, which is about a third of what Greece has done but comparable to other European debtors. But unemployment fell steadily. What was Canada’s secret?

The answer was, easy money and a large currency depreciation. These offset the drag from austerity, allowing growth to continue. So, how does this play into U.S. policy debates? Well, Republicans love to warn that America might turn into Greece any day now. But look at the policy mix that is now de facto GOP orthodoxy: sharp cuts in government spending (maybe offset by tax cuts for the rich, but these won’t provide much stimulus), combined with a monetary policy obsessed with fears of dollar “debasement.” That is, the conservative side of the US political spectrum, while holding up Greece as a cautionary tale, is actually demanding that we emulate the policy mix that turned Greek debt into a complete disaster.

Democrats have been preaching this for years! Greedy conservative will cause the “downfall” of this great country! As for Greece, they need help from the good American “socialists,” since they’re obviously doing it wrong. In a country where government revenue is less than expenditures, and has an inefficient tax collection system. It’s obvious they are not spending enough on “social welfare!”

Conservative Economics 03

Krugman economics reminds me of ancient “Babylonian” economics. Their empire was funded by the taxes that would devastate the economies of the outlying conquered communities. Not all of them at once. They had a system where, if I remember correctly, every five years a subject area would be taxed of just about everything they had.

To a “Babylonian” Paul Krugman “austerity” would mean that the government of Babylon no longer was able to squeeze any more “loot” out of the poor conquered territories and thus it’s loyal rent-seeking corrupt people that depended on the heartless plunder of conquered subject areas by the brutal army. To the poor conquered territories getting plundered into destitution “austerity” took on a very different meaning.

Greece and socialism are really just “ancient” plunder economics. There was probably a “Babylonian” Paul Krugman too. It’s the same “arrogant” mindset of empire. Only now the statists lessen the blow of “plunder” by inflating the currency so that it seems as if you still have your wealth – but it’s all been inflated away.

The real “austerity” that destroys economies is what happens to our bank accounts when central government tax and inflate our wealth away to feed their statist empires.

Krugman is famous for his scientific “predictions and practical” recommendations:

Conservative Economics 02
And who can forget the time Krugman called for an “invasion from outer space” to fix the economy! That financial “genius” is always thinking!

Krugman is correct. We cannot allow “evil” Conservatives to turn us into Greece when the “object” is to turn us into the former Soviet Union!

Double or Nothing

Posted in uncategorized with tags , , , on October 28, 2014 by andelino

hillarywine

Hillary Clinton: I Didn’t Mean What I Very Clearly Said

Hillary gave herself quite a 67th birthday present the other night when she said: “Don’t let anybody tell you that it’s corporations and businesses that create jobs.”

Now you know. Or do you?

According to Politico’s Maggie Haberman, ol’ Hill isn’t “actually” a communist.

She just “short-handed” what she was really trying to say and “clarified” her previous “plain-as-a-day” statement:

“Trickle down economics has failed. I short-handed this point the other day, so let me be absolutely clear about what I’ve been saying for a couple of decades,” she said.

“Our economy grows when businesses and entrepreneurs create good-paying jobs here in America and workers and families are empowered to build from the bottom up and the middle out — not when we hand out tax breaks for corporations that outsource jobs or stash their profits overseas.”

That seems “simple” enough.

Still “stupid and wrong,” but just as “clearly put” as her previous statement.

193359_5_

Wonder why she didn’t just say this in the first place? Why did she say, out loud and in front of a live microphone, that “businesses don’t create jobs?”

How is that statement somehow “shorthand” for this blatant “mental” flip-flop?

Who’s at “fault” here?

A vast “right-wing” conspiracy? An Internet “video” she had nothing to do with? A “Bosnian” sniper?

It’s a “mystery” but then this “explains” it :

hillarydrunk

I guess all that “vodka” is at fault causing the “slip and brain hemorrhage…”

hillary-fall

After much “difficulty” in their high “visibility” marriage, the Clintons did not “sleep” together for many years.

There were a string of “sordid” affairs and women such as Monica Lewinsky, Huma Abedin, Gennifer Flowers, Paula Jones, Maria Furtwängler, Belinda Stronach, Markie Post, Naomi Robson, Patricia Duff, Elizabeth Gracen, Sally Purdue, Dolly Kyle Browning and several dozen others, but now, at long last, it appears that just in time for her election, Hillary and Bill Clinton are again sleeping together.

Clintons Sleeping 01

The Economics of Sex

Posted in sex with tags , , , on July 29, 2014 by andelino

Economics of Sex 02

Economics, at first glance, doesn’t seem very…well…sexy. It’s all about numbers, right? How the stock market is doing, how much people are willing to spend on stuff they need or want, whether or not people have jobs. That’s economics, right?

Economics is fundamentally about human action. If this is true, then economics applies to “sexual” activity as well.

In the following video from the Austin Institute, today’s sexual “landscape” is examined through the lens of “economic truisms.”

Economics of Sex 01

“The Economics of Sex,” attempts to explain why more and more couples are getting married later on in life, “if at all.”

To sum it up, the maker of the video, the Austin Institute, essentially attributes the rise in “premarital sex” to the decline of marriage.

The argument is predicated on the notion that too many women are “giving it away” so quickly that it has “decimated” the necessity of a “lifetime” commitment.

Then, there is a “clever” incorporation of the “supply-and-demand” economic theory that is used to explain why men can continually “chase sex without commitment.”

In the end, the Austin Institutes’ point is that if women “engaged” in far less premarital sex, men would have to “court longer and harder” because our natural “urge for sex” would enable us to “acquiesce” to our woman’s “demand” to be married.

Economics of Sex 03

Throughout history, “marriage” has always been a step predicated off a culture’s “conceptualization of preparedness.”

In modern Western Society, that step has become “defined” by one’s ability not only to “love and protect, but to financially provide security.”

The prevalent “reality” of the world we live in today is that the step towards “having your shit together” is taking “far” longer than it ever has at any other time in recent history.

This means marriage is getting delayed because “economic realities” are demanding more from singles and couples than ever before, and “that” strain is real economics that this video is missing.

What does the left know about economics?

Taxes vs. Revenues

Posted in uncategorized with tags , , , , , , on February 25, 2014 by andelino

The Laffer Curve 01During a meeting in a restaurant with two officials from the Ford Administration, “Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld,” a young economist “sketched a curve” on a napkin to illustrate an “argument” he was making.

Arthur Laffer was explaining to the Washington policymakers the concept of “taxable income elasticity”—i.e., “taxable income will change in response to changes in the rate of taxation.”

By 1974, the idea was already ancient. Ibn Khaldun, a 14th century Muslim philosopher, wrote in his work “The Muqaddimah“:

“It should be known that at the beginning of the dynasty, taxation yields a large revenue from small assessments. At the end of the dynasty, taxation yields a small revenue from large assessments.”

John Maynard Keynes had made the same point in 1933.

But for American politicians the idea that people “change their behavior” based on “rates of taxation” seemed revolutionary, so the concept became popularized as “The Laffer Curve.”

The crucial point, as Laffer has explained, is that:

“People do not work, consume, or invest to pay taxes. They work and invest to earn after-tax income, and they consume to get the best buys after tax. Therefore, people are not concerned per se with taxes, but with after-tax results. Taxes and after-tax results are very similar, but have crucial differences.”

The Laffer Curve explains why “higher taxes” provide an incentive to “work less.”

The LafferCurve 03

“When tax rates are too high, people work less since they are working mainly to pay for the marginal tax increase. The result is that higher tax rates can cause revenue to the government to decrease below what it would have been without the increased rate.”

But there is another way to create the same effect as a “prohibitive” tax increase: “provide subsidies that reduce incentives to work.”

Consider, for instance, how the subsidies for ObamaCare are affecting economic growth:

The CBO, the government’s nonpartisan number-cruncher, included the figures in its projection of economic growth over the next decade. The CBO estimates that “ObamaCare” will lower full-time employment by 2.3m in 2021, compared with what might have been without reform. That 2.3m drop is nearly three times larger than the CBO’s earlier projection.

The CBO does not give “credence” to Republicans’ common claim that “ObamaCare” is already reducing employment. Rather, the CBO expects “ObamaCare” to have its biggest impact from 2017.

Furthermore, the main reason for the “decline” is not that employers will slash jobs, but that Americans will “choose” to work less.

Nevertheless, the CBO provides the best case yet that “ObamaCare” will depress work, rather than boost it.

Many factors account for the drop. Top among them is the affect of “subsidies” for health insurance.

To help Americans buy coverage on new health “exchanges”, ObamaCare offers “tax credits” to those earning between 100% and 400% of the federal poverty line (about $11,500 to $46,000 for a single adult).

Those tax credits are offered on a sliding scale, by income, so workers effectively “pay a higher tax rate as their wages rise.”

This will “dissuade” workers from trying to “earn” more. It also allows a higher “standard of living,” that is, with health coverage, at a lower income, which may further “discourage” work.

The Laffer Curve 04

The CBO analyses other provisions, too.

For example the higher “payroll tax” for couples earning $250,000 or more may lower their “desire to earn” higher wages.

ObamaCare’s requirement that “insurers” cover the sick, without raising their “rates”, may prompt many to “retire” earlier than they would have otherwise.

The unintended effect of “ObamaCare” is that it provides incentives to work less or “to not work at all.”

And with fewer people in the workforce, the government will be bringing in “zero” revenue from the income those people would have otherwise generated.

This outcome was not exactly “unexpected.” It was what economists had “predicted” all along but it seems to come as a “surprise” to President Obama.

Perhaps he should have “invite” Laffer to bring his “napkin” to the White House to show him exactly “where he went wrong.”

Instead, Obama “re-drew” the Laffer Curve with his own “economic” understanding:

The Laffer Curve 02

“Steve, the math is the math. You can’t lower rates and raise revenue, unless you’re getting revenue from someplace else.” -President Obama on 60 Minutes.

Well, as everyone knows by now, the “Nobel Prize” Obama won wasn’t in economics…

Does Raising Taxes Lead to More Gov’t Revenue?
Economics in One Lesson

Unemployment

Posted in uncategorized with tags , , , , on December 1, 2013 by andelino

Unemployment 101

Two ways to count unemployment

COSTELLO: I want to talk about the unemployment rate in America.

ABBOTT: Good Subject. Terrible Times. It’s 7.8%.

COSTELLO: That many people are out of work?

ABBOTT: No, that’s 14.7%.

COSTELLO: You just said 7.8%.

ABBOTT: 7.8% Unemployed.

COSTELLO: Right 7.8% out of work.

ABBOTT: No, that’s 14.7%.

COSTELLO: Okay, so it’s 14.7% unemployed.

ABBOTT: No, that’s 7.8%.

COSTELLO: WAIT A MINUTE. Is it 7.8% or 14.7%?

ABBOTT: 7.8% are unemployed. 14.7% are out of work.

COSTELLO: If you are out of work you are unemployed.

ABBOTT: No, Congress said you can’t count the “Out of Work” as the unemployed. You have to look for work to be unemployed.

COSTELLO: BUT THEY ARE OUT OF WORK!!!

ABBOTT: No, you miss his point.

COSTELLO: What point?

ABBOTT: Someone who doesn’t look for work can’t be counted with those who look for work. It wouldn’t be fair.

COSTELLO: To whom?

ABBOTT: The unemployed.

COSTELLO: But ALL of them are out of work.

ABBOTT: No, the unemployed are actively looking for work. Those who are out of work gave up looking and if you give up, you are no longer in the ranks of the unemployed.

COSTELLO: So if you’re off the unemployment roles that would count as less unemployment?

ABBOTT: Unemployment would go down. Absolutely!

COSTELLO: The unemployment just goes down because you don’t look for work?

ABBOTT: Absolutely it goes down. That’s how they get it to 7.8%. Otherwise it would be 14.7%. Our govt. Doesn’t want you to read about 14.7% unemployment.

COSTELLO: That would be tough on those running for reelection.

ABBOTT: Absolutely.

COSTELLO: Wait, I got a question for you. That means there are two ways to bring down the unemployment number?

ABBOTT: Two ways is correct.

COSTELLO: Unemployment can go down if someone gets a job?

ABBOTT: Correct.

COSTELLO: And unemployment can also go down if you stop looking for a job?

ABBOTT: Bingo.

COSTELLO: So there are two ways to bring unemployment down, and the easier of the two is to have people stop looking for work.

ABBOTT: Now you’re thinking like an Economist.

COSTELLO: I don’t even know what the hell I just said!

ABBOTT: Now you’re thinking like Congress.

Let’s hope the “sheeple” will understand this…

%d bloggers like this: