Exploring Opinions on Mitt Romney's Candidacy

[Angry Citizen]

Has anyone else seen what is happening here? I mean have you seen that this thread has become a metaphor for 21st century political America. I've been on a few forums over the years, founded and monitored a couple, and they always settle into a microcosm of society at the moment, a snap shot in time of the social zeitgeist if you will.

This thread is, like the American politic, starkly divided by ideology and political identification. The thread has it all: quietly moderate clear thinkers, angry liberals looking for a spark to throw gas on and self sure conservatives certain that they will save the world. All embodied within this little thread. It's sad and to me a bit disturbing.

One would think that among this group on this forum you'd encounter the best minds that the country has to offer. And you do, there is more high energy intellect on this forum than anywhere else that I've been on the web. Ask for help factoring some polynomial monster and you are instantly awash in genius. But, mention politics and we are just as quickly transformed into a bunch of alpha chimps screeching and hurling feces at each other although it's slightly more articulate poop I must admit.

Still, the metaphor is interesting.

Solid post. PhysicsForums political discussions tend to be more of a snapshot than other forums I am on, which seem to be geared more towards liberals. I actually feel outnumbered here. I haven't felt quite so isolated since I was a conservative, or worse, when I was a libertarian.

But it makes perfect sense. PhysicsForums attracts engineers, physicists, and general scientific-minded individuals. Such individuals, while still leaning left on account of their educational attainment, are more right wing than the average academic. These are, of course, simple demographics and are easily researched by anyone with an itchy google finger.

I must also point out, however, that there seems to be very few 'angry liberals' here. I certainly don't self-identify as one, even though I am angry. Personally, I think 'liberals' are too far to the right. *shrug*

 

[russ_watters]

My dad went to Stanford and Harvard via the Chicago public school system.

At least your nickname is apt

 

[Angry Citizen]

The US is the best place for upward mobility. Nowhere else in the world can someone in poverty make a jump between classes, so easily.

Patently false, according to Princeton:

http://www.princeton.edu/futureofchildren/publications/journals/article/index.xml?journalid=35&articleid=85&sectionid=515

And according to this report:

http://www.brookings.edu/reports/2008/~/media/CFF85818FBB34CF695503470B623EB31.ashx

 

[russ_watters]

How were they not? They prey on businesses who are running in the red. They walk in, fire a bunch of people, destroy pensions for those who have retired, and extract a fat profit from it all. I'd rather allow my company to go belly-up before letting these vultures in.

Er, what? It is better for everyone to lose than just some people and dishonorable to save a dying company? Maybe you should take a break to calm down.

 

[Angry Citizen]

Er, what? It is better for everyone to lose than just some people and dishonorable to save a dying company? Maybe you should take a break to calm down.

Analyze this rationally. How many thousands of workers could these companies have employed had it not been for the consulting fees of Bain Capital? Consulting firms should be outlawed. If companies need restructuring, fire the old management and bring new management in.

 

[mheslep]

Those on the left and those on the right have very different ideas of what constitutes "honor" in business and politics.

IMO, being a self-made millionaire is a badge of honor, not a badge of dishonor.

Agreed. If Romney has an actual association in a business deal with a real criminal like Obama had with Rezko (now serving 10 for kickbacks) I've yet to see it.

 

[Jasongreat]

Why in god's name would I want more than an engineer's salary? I pay for my own education, thanks.

It is not 'wrong' to spend money on your own family. It is wrong, however, to assert that this Romney character can relate to the commonfolk, or has ever had to deal with the stresses of middle and lower class economics. Good for him. I'm glad he didn't have to dig himself out of messes that his father caused, like I did. I'm glad he didn't have to be raised on welfare, because god forbid his father left his mother and she had to raise him as a single parent like some other kids. I'm glad he had access to the best schools (including private K-12 schools and the wealthier public schools) in the country. I'm glad he wasn't born with some disease that placed an immense financial burden on his economically disenfranchised family.

But if this man wants to cut welfare for others, eliminate the PPACA, and pretend the poor really can change their social class, then he needs to realize that his perspective is from someone who had money, had health care, and was already firmly situated in the moneyed class all his life - not from someone who has lived the struggle and extricated themselves despite the disadvantage. That is why so many people dislike Mitt Romney - that this man would presume to know what life is like for us peons.

Granted, if you consider yourself a peon, others will see you that way.

 

[russ_watters]

Analyze this rationally. How many thousands of workers could these companies have employed had it not been for the consulting fees of Bain Capital?

Er, none! You just said they were failing!

Consulting firms should be outlawed. If companies need restructuring, fire the old management and bring new management in.

Er, that's what Bain was!

 

[Angry Citizen]

Er, none! You just said they were failing!

Consulting firms should be outlawed. If companies need restructuring, fire the old management and bring new management in.[/QUOTE] Er, that's what Bain was![/QUOTE]

They failed, sure, but would they have failed without Bain? Maybe they would have; maybe they wouldn't have. I'd take my chances regardless.

And no, Bain is not 'new management'. Bain is an outside consulting firm. They exist to extract a profit as a company. Much different than simply hiring new, permanent management.

 

[phoenix:\\]

Agreed. If Romney has an actual association in a business deal with a real criminal like Obama had with Rezko (now serving 10 for kickbacks) I've yet to see it.

Cannot fault someone for the road taken by others. I also believe he meant honorable in the sense of working yourself out of ruts and going from 0 to successful. Also honorable in the sense of strong principles, and seeing as Romney often changes his principles and ethical stances, he isn't honorable in that sense either. He is of high class though if that has any honor to it.

Oh look he won Nevada...

http://nbcpolitics.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/02/04/10319217-romney-wins-nevada-caucus-solidifying-momentum

 

[russ_watters]

They failed, sure, but would they have failed without Bain? Maybe they would have; maybe they wouldn't have.

They didn't fail with Bain, they failed before hiring Bain. Bain turned them around.

And no, Bain is not 'new management'. Bain is an outside consulting firm.

Old outside management?

They exist to extract a profit as a company.

Who doesn't!

Much different than simply hiring new, permanent management.

Yeah: being independent gives them more freedom to make useful changes!

 

[CAC1001]

That's actually not high on my list of reasons. The main reason not to vote for Romney is because he is a Republican who holds all the ideologies of a modern Republican. Moderate Mitt Romney does not seem to exist anymore, which shows that he'll do or say anything to get elected - even in excess of what a normal politician would do or say. He would keep taxes on the rich low, further exacerbating our debt problem and increasing income inequality. There are loads of reasons not to vote for Mitt Romney.

Income inequality is not going to get solved by raising taxes on the wealthy and it is not even a bad thing, it's the natural outcome of a free society. Income isn't something that exists in some fixed supply that is then doled out to society by some central authority, and the rich are hogging it all to themselves due to rigging the system.

Then please explain how they managed to extract enormous profit even if their companies failed.

You can make profit from a company even if it fails, but what makes you think they made profit from all the companies they invested in? Their profits come from the successes.

How were they not? They prey on businesses who are running in the red. They walk in, fire a bunch of people, destroy pensions for those who have retired, and extract a fat profit from it all. I'd rather allow my company to go belly-up before letting these vultures in.

Then you'd allow everyone to lose their job and their pension, as opposed to letting a firm come in and do what is required to save the company that you ran into the ground (it wasn't Bain's fault those companies were in the red, that was the management). Of course they make a profit from it. Why else would they do it?

 

[Angry Citizen]

Income inequality is not going to get solved by raising taxes on the wealthy and it is not even a bad thing, it's the natural outcome of a free society. Income isn't something that exists in some fixed supply that is then doled out to society by some central authority, and the rich are hogging it all to themselves due to rigging the system.

Yes it will, yes it is, yes I'm afraid you're right, no I'm afraid you're wrong. Proof: See Western Europe.

Man, I do know the appeal of this train of thought, but income inequality is a bad thing. It is toxic to a society. The glory days of America in the 20th century occurred when income inequality was at its lowest and taxes on the rich were twice what they are now.

 

[mheslep]

This is simply not true- assume we ran 5 or 6% inflation and got to full employment in a year or two. The combination of people moving off unemployment/medicaid/the nominal GDP growth would dramatically shrink the deficit- more than keeping up with spending growth.

You're right in a sense, it would be dramatic if an improvement of a few hundred billion were dramatic anymore. It's not. I did say large deficit ($1100B), and that is also against a large debt (%100 GDP), which is relevant when interest on that always-rolling-over debt climbs again.

Now, the long-term problem of health care costs is anyone's guess.

The permanent empirically doesn't work- there is plenty of evidence that temporary increases in income lead to temporary increases in consumption. See David Romer's macro book.

<shrug> If you want to waive away Friedman's PIH and then maintain an "absolutely no evidence" stance about a deficit drag then I suppose we're done.

 

[CAC1001]

Patently false, according to Princeton:

http://www.princeton.edu/futureofchildren/publications/journals/article/index.xml?journalid=35&articleid=85&sectionid=515

And according to this report:

http://www.brookings.edu/reports/2008/~/media/CFF85818FBB34CF695503470B623EB31.ashx

They're wrong. The most economically free, liberal nations, such as the U.S., Canada, and the UK are where people who really want to work and make a success of themselves, move to, because they offer the most social mobility. Nobody immigrates to Norway or Spain or France to really make a success of themselves, unless they're coming out of a third world nation, where one of those nations is a real step up.

 

[Jasongreat]

Yes it will, yes it is, yes I'm afraid you're right, no I'm afraid you're wrong. Proof: See Western Europe.

Man, I do know the appeal of this train of thought, but income inequality is a bad thing. It is toxic to a society. The glory days of America in the 20th century occurred when income inequality was at its lowest and taxes on the rich were twice what they are now.

Have you heard of mellon? What happened when they lowered the tax rate?

 

[russ_watters]

They aren't wrong, it is just a little problem of logic: proof they don't isn't proof they can't.

 

[CAC1001]

Yes it will, yes it is, yes I'm afraid you're right, no I'm afraid you're wrong. Proof: See Western Europe.

Western Europe has less income inequality because they hamstring economic growth and wealth creation, which keeps the entire society poorer.

Man, I do know the appeal of this train of thought, but income inequality is a bad thing. It is toxic to a society. The glory days of America in the 20th century occurred when income inequality was at its lowest and taxes on the rich were twice what they are now.

Income inequality is not toxic. It isn't toxic for one guy to make more than someone else because of his choosing to work harder or in a more demanding profession. Those glory days occurred because the U.S. did not have much in the way of economic competition at the time, and was in spite of the high taxes, which many people got out of paying via loopholes.

"Income inequality" isn't really a thing, it's just the natural statistical distribution of the incomes in a society. It doesn't mean more income is being hogged by some fixed class. For people who do not earn as much to think they are entitled to someone else's income is a statist mindset and the height of selfishness.

 

[Angry Citizen]

It isn't toxic for one guy to make more than someone else because of his choosing to work harder or in a more demanding profession.

This forum is replete with people who work ten times harder than people who 'earn' ten times more money. This is ridiculous.

But as for this:

They're wrong.

Glad you've figured economics out better than, y'know, the economists...

I'm a Keynesian for two reasons. One, the people who spend their lives in the field of macroeconomics are overwhelmingly Keynesian. I might as well go against the vast majority of scientists who say global warming and evolution are true. Similar logic applies. And two, because historical precedent shows that relative income equality is a good thing. I do not advocate that a janitor make as much as a physicist or a businessman. I just advocate that the disparity between the two isn't nearly as disproportionate as it is now. No one puts in enough work, and no one is valuable enough, to warrant such vast differences in income.

 

[Jasongreat]

This forum is replete with people who work ten times harder than people who 'earn' ten times more money. This is ridiculous.

So what I enjoy my job.

But as for this:



Glad you've figured economics out better than, y'know, the economists...

I'm a Keynesian for two reasons. One, the people who spend their lives in the field of macroeconomics are overwhelmingly Keynesian. I might as well go against the vast majority of scientists who say global warming and evolution are true. Similar logic applies. And two, because historical precedent shows that relative income equality is a good thing. I do not advocate that a janitor make as much as a physicist or a businessman. I just advocate that the disparity between the two isn't nearly as disproportionate as it is now. No one puts in enough work, and no one is valuable enough, to warrant such vast differences in income.

Peolple who spend their lives in academia are pro keynesian. Those who spend their life outside academia, are either pro austrian economics or pro andrew mellon economics. How does one account for this?

 

[Angry Citizen]

For people who do not earn as much to think they are entitled to someone else's income

In my view, it is the CEO's and businessmen who think they are entitled to someone else's income. Who really does the work in a business? Is the CEO's contribution really that much more important to the purpose of the company? CEO's and businessmen are leeches of the highest calibre, extracting as much wealth as they do precisely because they can set their own salaries. They don't "earn" their money.

And yes, I'm a proud and unabashed statist. It's funny how you use it as an epithet, but I'm afraid the genie is out of the bottle now. People aren't afraid to advocate class warfare any more.

 

[Angry Citizen]

Peolple who spend their lives in acedemia are pro keynesian. Those who spend their life outside acedemia, are either pro austrian economics or pro andrew mellon economics. How does one account for this?

I smell that tired old Republican cliché, "Academia is an unrepresented and out-of-touch microcosm!" Do you have any proof of this assertion?

 

[russ_watters]

CEOs most certainly do not set their own salaries and yes, their jobs are extremely importaint. I mean: if it were easy, they wouldn't need Bain to pull them out of a tailspin!

You have a really twisted view of reality.

 

[Jasongreat]

I smell that tired old Republican cliché, "Academia is an unrepresented and out-of-touch microcosm!" Do you have any proof of this assertion?

I would say that academia is an over represented microcosm.

 

[CAC1001]

This forum is replete with people who work ten times harder than people who 'earn' ten times more money. This is ridiculous.

How much money you make has very little to do with how hard you actually work. It has to do with what you produce. Generally speaking, to produce more or to produce something of high-value means working hard, taking the time to learn a set of special skills that are in high-demand, or some combination. But it ultimately in the end comes down to what you produce, which is why the guy sitting at a computer writing up a computer program that can make a lot more money than the guy busting his butt in a coal mine.

Glad you've figured economics out better than, y'know, the economists...

A term like "social mobility" or "income mobility" are difficult to define for one thing. Generally speaking, one would think they refer to what opportunity is available for one to advance themselves economically in a nation. Which if that is the definition, the United States ranks among the highest of all nations. Same with Canada and the UK. No one who wants to work hard or start a business or whatnot, if they have a choice, goes to the likes of Spain or France or the Scandinavian nations. The opportunities just aren't there and the laws and regulations and even the culture are very much against it.

I'm a Keynesian for two reasons. One, the people who spend their lives in the field of macroeconomics are overwhelmingly Keynesian. I might as well go against the vast majority of scientists who say global warming and evolution are true.

Most people who spend their lives in macroeconomics are not overwhelmingly Keynesian, they are neo-Keynesian, which is actually a more in line with Milton Friedman's monetarism. Much of Keynesianism itself was given up on because it was shown it doesn't work or makes some very overly-simplistic assumptions.

Similar logic applies. And two, because historical precedent shows that relative income equality is a good thing. I do not advocate that a janitor make as much as a physicist or a businessman. I just advocate that the disparity between the two isn't nearly as disproportionate as it is now. No one puts in enough work, and no one is valuable enough, to warrant such vast differences in income.

Why not? the market is what determines how much someone makes, not a bureaucrat. How much someone's profession or skills are valued depends on the market. Nothing has any absolute value to it, it only is valued at what the market demands.

And "inequality" is a tricky concept, because in a great many ways, we are technically more equal today as a society than we have ever been, when one looks at the amount of goods and services available to the average person versus in the past. An extreme example, could be the difference in living of a wealthy person in the 19th century versus the average person, who by modern standards was dirt poor. Today, everyone is wealthy, we are just unequally wealthy. The average person today has access to things that the richest people in the world did not have access too as early as twenty years ago. The average person in fifty years will have access to goods, services, medical care, etc...that billionaires do not have access to today.

 

[CAC1001]

In my view, it is the CEO's and businessmen who think they are entitled to someone else's income. Who really does the work in a business? Is the CEO's contribution really that much more important to the purpose of the company? CEO's and businessmen are leeches of the highest calibre, extracting as much wealth as they do precisely because they can set their own salaries. They don't "earn" their money.

While there are some exceptions, the vast majority do. And yes, the work they do is a LOT more valuable than the average employee. It takes a lot of skill to run a large company, and in particular a lot of skill to run one during a major economic downturn. CEOs do not set their own pay, the market determines that. If a CEO runs a company into the ground, then they will not command as high a pay at their next job. No different than sports athlete who performs poorly or a movie actor whose movie performs badly.

And yes, I'm a proud and unabashed statist. It's funny how you use it as an epithet, but I'm afraid the genie is out of the bottle now. People aren't afraid to advocate class warfare any more.

Ahh, okay. Just so you're aware, statism has a rather poor record historically.

 

[mheslep]

Cannot fault someone for the road taken by others. I also believe he meant honorable in the sense of working yourself out of ruts and going from 0 to successful.

Sure there are several contexts to honorable, but in this discussion so far the context has been financial dealings: did somebody cheat on a deal, fraud, take a bribe, payoff, etc.

Also honorable in the sense of strong principles, and seeing as Romney often changes his principles and ethical stances, he isn't honorable in that sense either...

Not ethical stances, mostly Romney has shifted on some policies IMO. That might be dishonorable if done for naked ambition, but not by default. Even Reagan changed position on abortion, and was originally a Democrat back in the day. Meanwhile Romney's move on health care mandates is nothing to me compared to Obama's shift on the War on Terror (close Gitmo in 100 days, drone bombing US citizen-terrorists, etc) or utterly disregarding the Bowles Simpson deficit committee he setup.

 

[mheslep]

They're wrong. The most economically free, liberal nations, such as the U.S., Canada, and the UK are where people who really want to work and make a success of themselves, move to, because they offer the most social mobility. Nobody immigrates to Norway or Spain or France to really make a success of themselves, unless they're coming out of a third world nation, where one of those nations is a real step up.

Just FYI, the mobility issue is under vigorous debate right now among the professional (blogging) economists. Strong arguments both sides. You could argue the US has better mobility, but noway could one argue that it is incontrovertibly so.

http://marginalrevolution.com/margi...does-the-inequality-immobility-link-mean.html

You *might* be right in the narrow case of moving out of the bottom of the bottom. The labor rules have long made it very difficult to get that first job in Europe, leaving youth and immigrant unemployment far higher than in the US (42% unemployed youth in Spain)

 

[mheslep]

If a CEO runs a company into the ground, then they will not command as high a pay at their next job. ...

If the performance is really bad, there is almost never a 'next job', never another existing-company-CEO job, hence the clamoring for golden parachutes. They fade away to consulting, boards, etc, often with undeserved paydays, but they will never get offered the big chair again, anywhere.

 

[ParticleGrl]

<shrug> If you want to waive away Friedman's PIH and then maintain an "absolutely no evidence" stance about a deficit drag then I suppose we're done.

First, I'm not waiving it away- I'm pointing out that its empirically wrong. This isn't controversial- its discussed in macro textbooks as I referenced.

Second, the permanent income hypothesis and the related ricardian equivalence are simplifying assumptions made for models. They aren't empirical. Your argument goes like this
1. assume that deficits are always a drag on the economy
2. point the existence of a deficit

if this is true, the deficit should have been a huge drag starting under Reagan, all the way to today. Where is the evidence of that? What sectors of the economy correlate negatively with the deficit?

Generally speaking, one would think they refer to what opportunity is available for one to advance themselves economically in a nation. Which if that is the definition, the United States ranks among the highest of all nations. Same with Canada and the UK. No one who wants to work hard or start a business or whatnot, if they have a choice, goes to the likes of Spain or France or the Scandinavian nations. The opportunities just aren't there and the laws and regulations and even the culture are very much against it.

There is a great deal of evidence that social mobility in the US is significantly lower than in Europe. Google "great gatsby curve", for Krueger's preferred bit of evidence. Even Tyler Cowen admits we aren't socially mobile in the US- he just isn't sure if that's a bad thing or not.

Now, yes, people generally fewer people immigrate to France/Scandinavian/European nations, but that's entirely because they have much stricter immigration controls. Europe doesn't lack for small business start ups. For smaller nations, Scandinavian countries are well represented in innovative companies (think Nokia/Ikea/H&M).

 

[ParticleGrl]

If the performance is really bad, there is almost never a 'next job', never another existing-company-CEO job.

Counterexample- Leo Apotheker. He nearly destroyed SAP, moved on to HP, and in an awful 11 month tenure his about-face on webOS and decision to kill their touchpad less than a month after its launch not only embarrassed the company but dropped the stock by half.

 

[turbo]

Counterexample- Leo Apotheker. He nearly destroyed SAP, moved on to HP, and in an awful 11 month tenure his about-face on webOS and decision to kill their touchpad less than a month after its launch not only embarrassed the company but dropped the stock by half.

One should Google "Chainsaw Al" and see what kind of destruction vultures can unleash on mills and entire towns and regions. Stripping all movable value out of a company and dismantling it is not "turn-around".

 

[CAC1001]

1. assume that deficits are always a drag on the economy
2. point the existence of a deficit

if this is true, the deficit should have been a huge drag starting under Reagan, all the way to today. Where is the evidence of that? What sectors of the economy correlate negatively with the deficit?

I know this was addressed to mheslep, but remember a deficit will usually not be a drag on an economy if the debt as a percentage of the GDP is below 90%, which it was during the Reagan years. It's when it gets above that number that the debt tends to be a problem, and the deficit as it is continually adding to the debt.

There is a great deal of evidence that social mobility in the US is significantly lower than in Europe. Google "great gatsby curve", for Krueger's preferred bit of evidence. Even Tyler Cowen admits we aren't socially mobile in the US- he just isn't sure if that's a bad thing or not.

What is the definition of mobility here? The ability of one person to move up economically, or whether one generation's children will advance themselves further economically than that generation itself reached? Remember that whether or not generational mobility occurs does not tell whether the opportunity for mobility exists or not. Opportunity can exist and yet there can still be reasons why generational mobility does not occur (ex. cultural impediments, a welfare state that fosters dependency, etc...).

Regarding the "Great Gatsby Curve," I'd say it's a nonsensical argument Krueger is making. Having read Krueger's speech at the Center for American Progress, I think he's completely missing the forest for the trees in his analysis and making a very partisan and hole-strewn argument. He unfortunately makes the assumption that income is something produced in some fixed supply in the economy and is normally divided up among society fairly equally, but now too much of it is accruing to the highest income quintiles, and that this is bad because it is leaving less income available to the lower quintiles. IMO, this is literally pseudo-scientific reasoning, but it passes for legitimate economic analysis (from actual economists!) in the public debate. Implicit in this also is the secondary assumption that the income quintiles represent fixed classes of people, which they don't.

Income inequality is a dubious statistic, as it refers to the uneven distribution of income in society. But there is no "distribution of income." Income is simply the result of one trading one's skills/goods/services on the market. "Income inequality" is just attaching a term to this unequal statistical income distribution that is the result of the vagaries of the market. That it's uneven shouldn't even matter. The way people like Krueger make it sound, the top quintiles represent fixed classes of wealthy people who are hogging more and more of a fixed supply of income that is supposed to be distributed equally out to society, and thus less is left available for the lower quintiles, hence hampering their economic mobility. But if the whole concept of "income inequality" is really nonsensical, then it means something like the Great Gatsby Curve, which compares income inequality levels of nations with economic mobility of nations, is rather meaningless.

Now, yes, people generally fewer people immigrate to France/Scandinavian/European nations, but that's entirely because they have much stricter immigration controls.

Many of them also have less economic opportunity. They on average have a harsher environment for business than countries such as the U.S., Canada, and the UK and a harsher environment for advancing oneself economically.

Europe doesn't lack for small business start ups. For smaller nations, Scandinavian countries are well represented in innovative companies (think Nokia/Ikea/H&M).

All European countries have some innovative companies and startups, and not all the European countries are the same either, some being more friendly to economic freedom than others, but quite a few of those nations make it much harder to succeed in growing a business (in particular France, Italy, Spain). The Scandinavian nations rank better, but not as high as the United States, Switzerland, Canada, Australia, and the UK: Index of Economic Freedom The worse ones tend to have much more stringent laws regarding firing people, greater limits on the amount of hours one can work, businesses are not allowed to remain open 24/7 in certain countries, they have higher taxes and regulations, they have much more stringent bankruptcy laws, which defer entrepreneurship because if one fails, they can be financially ruined for life, etc...

People seeking economic advancement do not seek to immigrate into the countries with the least amounts of economic freedom.

 

[WhoWee]

First, I'm not waiving it away- I'm pointing out that its empirically wrong. This isn't controversial- its discussed in macro textbooks as I referenced.

Second, the permanent income hypothesis and the related ricardian equivalence are simplifying assumptions made for models. They aren't empirical. Your argument goes like this
1. assume that deficits are always a drag on the economy
2. point the existence of a deficit

if this is true, the deficit should have been a huge drag starting under Reagan, all the way to today. Where is the evidence of that? What sectors of the economy correlate negatively with the deficit?

Wasn't Reagan's defense spending unsustainable? I seem to recall the defense contractors in CA having some cutbacks - weren't drastic steps taken by Clinton/Gingrich to cut spending?

 

[WhoWee]

One should Google "Chainsaw Al" and see what kind of destruction vultures can unleash on mills and entire towns and regions. Stripping all movable value out of a company and dismantling it is not "turn-around".

In situations like the one you've described - perhaps the workers and townspeople would be better off mortgaging their homes to save their plant - keep it local and in trusted hands.

This could have worked for GM also - union members could have stepped up and bought the company outright - sink or swim.