Economists tend to be liberals! I don't think I've met a republican that even understands supply & demand
The era prior to the Civil War and this era resemble each other because in both periods there was no common ground between two visions of America. In the 1850s each of the attempts at compromise between Free Soilers and Slave Staters failed. The same is true today. The paralysis of the country in political terms is evidence for this proposition. All other historical eras in American history held some measure of comity and shared belief.
That explains then why Washington is so screwed up. Liberals control the executive branch and the Senate. You're backwards and confused. How did you get out of the nut house?
Yep, given the right wing tendency in American politics, there isn't sufficient attention to rational economic thought
I'm talking about the libs, my friend. Do you think Obama has been utilizing sound economic principles and/or theories?
I love how you pick and choose what you want to answer in many paragraphs and avoid the rest. Some things you just aren't able to answer from your economic standpoint and you choose to not answer, thinking you will "outsmart" the others. The fact of the matter is you never give a straight answer. You may be good at trying to debunk other theories, but you are terrible at debunking reality. You blame everything on right wing policy, yet you have no answer for why we don't just print all the money we need. It's obvious, you love Keynesian economics, and feel its the way to go forward, but you give no limits. So, if Romney somehow gets elected and runs the deficit to 20 trillion or close to it, will you still be backing him, or will you go back to your actual political ideology of being a progressive? I for one, will disown Romney as soon as that deficit hits anywhere near 16.5-17 trillion. It's all over at that point. It shows me it can't be done at this point. This is how I see it. You won't give a (*)(*)(*)(*) if Obama hits anywhere near 17 trillion, but you will hate Romney if he gets near it. Am I right? yea, yea, you will hate him if he cuts taxes on the rich, sure. I get it, its a typical progressive response to everything. Divide the classes, by all means do not unite this country. I'm just interested if you have the same views if Romney were to get elected.
A silly comment given I'm replying to content-free bobbins Don't make stuff up now. I blame right wing ideology for spreading non-economic drivel. That's of course supported by economic reality; from the fellow saying "avoid economists when talking economics" to the neo-liberal irrationality engineered through authoritarianism A ridiculous comment. I'm merely rational and will refer to the different political economic school of thought. Would I be classed as a Keynesian? Nope. I'm be classed as an institutionalist. However, only a cretin would ignore how Keynesianism has been used to stabilise capitalism.
With all of the built in spending, I'm pretty sure that Romney will get to 20 billion in debt (unless things all blow to hell first). Even Ryan's unaltered plan would still have running 6 trillion in deficits for the next 10 years. It's easy to crank up spending, it's really difficult start running it down. Remember, during the debt ceiling crisis, Obama was willing to quit negotiations and let the debt ceiling debacle blow up rather than cut Planned Parenthood funding. Boehner blinked, not Obama. With that kind of ideological commitment to even small amounts of spending like that, there will be constant infighting in the Congress over every single line item of spending. Democrats are more committed to social issues than Republicans are to budget cutting. If you think "obstruction" is going on now, wait for President Romney. The Democrats will be at war every single second of his term.
Again, you have no means to evaluate the economic performance. You do not have the economic knowledge, ensuring that you can only bleat in the way demanded by the three line whip
The so-called knowledge that you boast about is mostly gibberish and does not conform to reality. Maybe you should stick with British politics.
Still talking in circles, citing unsubstaniated nonsense as "fact", and pretending that ACTUAL BUSINESS OWNERS posting here, know less about ACTUAL ECONOMICS than you, we see. Hilarious...
You haven't said anything. Do you honestly think someone that thinks we should turn to accountants, rather than economists, for economic understanding is going to be much cop? Crikey, the very definition of costs isn't understood!
That's because economists deal with theory and policy. Accountants know the actual numbers. In other words, accountants deal in reality.
Pfft... Accountants don't deal with opportunity costs so have no way of understanding profits. If it's not on a balance sheet, it doesn't exist.
You sure? I own a grey suit and am good with numbers (admittedly I do understand economics too, a proper terror!)