It's interesting...

[Orsorum]

Originally posted by: da loser
does economics ever have correlations with numbers? i always found it odd, that no numbers are involved but just words and seemingly correct oh this goes up therefore so and so goes down, yes but by how much and in relation to so and so. does this occur in economic journals, and words are used for the lay person or what? because otherwise economists are just a bunch of politicians.

I can give you figures, if you would like, but they're very boring and not very obvious unless explained. They're not even obvious to me unless I write it out.

 

[Siddhartha]

Originally posted by: Zakath15
I'm normally a fiscal conservative... but after studying more advanced macroeconomics, I've turned into a democratic/liberal policymaker... i.e. the best decisions for the economy are generally those taken by democrats - i.e. tax cuts to the lower tax brackets, cutting the dividend tax on the business end rather than the individual shareholder end, etc.

Just thought that was interesting.

You can not use the conservative\liberal cliches when discussing macroeconomics. For example, was Reagan's economic plan conservative or liberal?

Keynesian, trickle down, Malthus, etc actually mean something.

 

[everman]

Originally posted by: Alistar7

Originally posted by: Zim Hosein

Originally posted by: MichaelD
Whatever. You want me to acknowledge it's interesting? Here is how: Make my Mutals increase about 75% in value to where they were back in the year 2000. That would be an interesting fiscal-related thingamabob.

That would be a miracle and only God can do that 🙁

<--Go away Atheists, I'm only trying to say that it'll be a long time before MichaelD's wish is granted.

Bring Clinton back, he took a market from 3,000 to over 10,000....

That was Gore really since he invented the internet.

 

[Alistar7]

Originally posted by: everman

Originally posted by: Alistar7

Originally posted by: Zim Hosein

Originally posted by: MichaelD
Whatever. You want me to acknowledge it's interesting? Here is how: Make my Mutals increase about 75% in value to where they were back in the year 2000. That would be an interesting fiscal-related thingamabob.

That would be a miracle and only God can do that 🙁

<--Go away Atheists, I'm only trying to say that it'll be a long time before MichaelD's wish is granted.

Bring Clinton back, he took a market from 3,000 to over 10,000....

That was Gore really since he invented the internet.

my bad, youre right, I forgot to give credit to the creator of the internet Mr. Al Gore, thanks again Al, love your idea.

The market was way overvalued at the end of Clinton's term, since you didnt capitalize then and sell you are actually better off today with a realistic market and they are reflecting their true value. Time will reward you more than any single administrations policy.

 

[Mallow]

Do you deny Reaganomics was responsible for the economic boom Clinton enjoyed? Trust me, it wasn't his policy that caused it. Economic cycles are not shifted on short term time scales.

 

[Orsorum]

Originally posted by: Mallow
Do you deny Reaganomics was responsible for the economic boom Clinton enjoyed? Trust me, it wasn't his policy that caused it. Economic cycles are not shifted on short term time scales.

I didn't study Reagan's policies, therefore I cannot yet voice a definitive opinion on the subject. Anyone else have an opinion to offer?

 

[Orsorum]

Originally posted by: Alistar7

my bad, youre right, I forgot to give credit to the creator of the internet Mr. Al Gore, thanks again Al, love your idea.

The market was way overvalued at the end of Clinton's term, since you didnt capitalize then and sell you are actually better off today with a realistic market and they are reflecting their true value. Time will reward you more than any single administrations policy.

Very, very good advice.

 

[Alistar7]

Originally posted by: Mallow
Do you deny Reaganomics was responsible for the economic boom Clinton enjoyed? Trust me, it wasn't his policy that caused it. Economic cycles are not shifted on short term time scales.

Funny how all credit was given to Reagan while he was in power until Clinton's economy outpaced it dramatically. Cycles usally run about 7 years, Bush the first saw the result of his policy and it is undeniable. Our nations debt quadrupled to over 4 trillion dollars, let me borrow 3 trillion and I will pump up the economy as well, funny how when Clinton used balanced budgets and started paying down the debt foreign capital investement reached levels not seen since WW2. Explain to me how reagans policies that greatly inflated our debt are responsible for the largest factor in the economy under Clinton, when the measures taken that created the investement were a CORRECTION to reagans policies and occured well after he was gone. Do yourself a favor, stop listening to Rush and use your own brain, I remember when this talking point was created by the GOP, it's as laughable today as it was then

 

[yoda291]

wasn't reagan economics = star wars = teh suck?

 

[Alistar7]

notice the right will lay claim to all of Clinton's success, before him it was Reagan, funny, now that they have attempted to attach Reagan to Clinton's successthey have forgotten what Reagan did, and what they claimed he did and its wonderfull effect. So what was it, or are you so blind that since the GOP stopped mentioning it you cant even remember their last position? lol. Reagan also put a vast amount of former US military personnel and mentally incompetent people on the street. Does anyone remember a huge homeless problem BEFORE reagan?