- #246
WhoWee
- 219
- 0
Char. Limit said:You, ah, did see this post, right?
Actually no - not until after I posted.
Char. Limit said:You, ah, did see this post, right?
Did you misinterpret my post? The argument was not just that the assertion was true, it was the notion that their assertions were true "since, you know, they study that kind of thing."Char. Limit said:Quoted from Wiki:What was that again?There is no fallacy involved in simply arguing that the assertion made by an authority is true.
Ryumast3r said:There's still the military, unless he downsizes the military. They still get paid outside of combat... they just don't do anything.
turbo-1 said:Anyway, I doubt that Obama is short-sighted enough to have not considered employment for returning vets.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Perhaps you can show us why he doesn't have any plan for returning troops...WhoWee said:I'm sure we would have heard something about his glorious plan by now - if he had one - don't you?
Ryumast3r said:I'll just add to my post above:
Every year that FDR was in office for his first two terms, unemployment fell. The only exceptions being in 1937 and 1938. The numbers only say that unemployment grew if you count government workers as "Unemployed" which they aren't, since they are doing a job and getting paid for it (thus "employed").
Also during FDR's first two terms, the U.S. economy grew at rates of between 9-10%, massive growth for a depression if you ask me.
20% of banks failed when Hoover did nothing, each one that failed leading to the next one failing due to a lack of programs like the FDIC, as people didn't think their money was safe in a bank, opting instead for the good ol' mattress. That is, until FDR stabilized the banks through the FDIC and other programs.
The growth wasn't only in government jobs though, the private sector also grew. With the banks stabilizing, small businesses could pull money in and out, invest it, reinvest, get loans, whatever they needed again without fear of the bank disappearing the next day.
If that isn't proof enough, the two years in which unemployment grew (1937-1938) are the two years in which FDR pulled back his New Deal program because conservatives asked him to. They said "balance the budget - or try to" so he raised taxes and cut spending, and the depression continued because of this until a new bailout of sorts came along in the form of WWII.
turbo-1 said:Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Perhaps you can show us why he doesn't have any plan for returning troops...
You claimed that he had no "glorious plan" because we haven't heard anything about it. I'm asking you to support that statement. There are millions of initiatives, suggestions, etc, in our government that we never hear about because they are not elucidated in policy speeches nor covered by what is left of our very anemic press. Where did you come up with the idea that the Obama administration has not considered employment opportunities for returning vets?WhoWee said:Huh?
turbo-1 said:You claimed that he had no "glorious plan" because we haven't heard anything about it. I'm asking you to support that statement. There are millions of initiatives, suggestions, etc, in our government that we never hear about because they are not elucidated in policy speeches nor covered by what is left of our very anemic press. Where did you come up with the idea that the Obama administration has not considered employment opportunities for returning vets?
turbo-1 said:You claimed that he had no "glorious plan" because we haven't heard anything about it. I'm asking you to support that statement. There are millions of initiatives, suggestions, etc, in our government that we never hear about because they are not elucidated in policy speeches nor covered by what is left of our very anemic press. Where did you come up with the idea that the Obama administration has not considered employment opportunities for returning vets?
I shouldn't have to find anything. You made the claim.WhoWee said:Well, I've searched for his announcement of an employment plan for returning vets - all I could find was this:
http://www.opm.gov/News_Events/congress/testimony/112thCongress/04_13_2011.asp
It looks like his plan is to give them Government jobs?
Did you find anything?
turbo-1 said:I shouldn't have to find anything. You made the claim.
WhoWee said:I'm sure we would have heard something about his glorious plan by now - if he had one - don't you?
turbo-1 said:Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Perhaps you can show us why he doesn't have any plan for returning troops...
"I doubt" means that my thoughts on the administration's policy regarding returning vets is a matter of opinion, and I doubt that employment opportunities for them have not been considered.WhoWee said:No turbo - you made the claim when you posted:
"Anyway, I doubt that Obama is short-sighted enough to have not considered employment for returning vets."
Char. Limit said:Although I agree with you here, you should probably source your info. Just sayin'.
Al68 said:The "appeal to authority" logical fallacy? Most people don't admit to it so openly.
Anyway, a little research will show that economists are actually very divided on the issue, and always have been. Non-Keynesian economists generally agree that FDR's policies made the situation far worse, while Keynesian economists say otherwise. The same disagreement exists today: economics is divided into ideological camps.
IMO, Keynesian economics is nothing more than a cover for left-wingers believing whatever serves their agenda. It has been used by the left as a license to steal since FDR.
There may be some need for action as these vets return. If their employers have hired replacements or eliminated their jobs and refuse to re-hire them, there could be some complications. There are also a lot of folks that had their own businesses and had to give them up and/or leave them in other hands while they served us overseas. They may need training and/or financial assistance (loan guarantees, perhaps) in order to rebuild.BobG said:Or, perhaps, because no new plan is necessary. How members of the Guard and Reserve are handled has been law for many years. The only reason a plan would be necessary for active duty members is if a withdrawal from Afghanistan meant a reduction in the size of the military.
turbo-1 said:"I doubt" means that my thoughts on the administration's policy regarding returning vets is a matter of opinion, and I doubt that employment opportunities for them have not been considered.
WhoWee said:Accordingly, it's my opinion that if President Obama had a plan - we would hear about it from him.
Ryumast3r said:Because every plan that Obama comes up with is presented in a speech?
WhoWee said:In the context of this thread?
Ryumast3r said:Yes, even in the context of this thread I'd disagree that Obama vocalizes every plan he comes up with as soon as he comes up with it. They're really still debating over the troop withdrawal plan because some fear it might hurt Afghanistan and empower the Taliban more. This is all just my opinion, but if I were in his shoes, I'd wait until the debate is settled (in terms of the effect on afghanistan) before I started a new debate on how to handle the troops homecoming. If the debate became too long, well, December is still a long way out, and there's always time for a speech between now and then.
That, and unveiling some kind of grand scheme for the troops closer to the elections could probably not hurt, if people liked it anyway.
Sure, it theoretically could be, but non-Keynesian (post-Enlightenment) economics as a science was around long before the science of economics was corrupted for political purposes. Keynes hit the scene in the 1930s, along with the worldwide spread of leftist/socialist/FDR propaganda he supported, and the politicization of economics in general. Keynesian economics was essentially created to politically support economic oppression.Ryumast3r said:If Keynesian economics is nothing more than a cover for left-wingers, then non-keynesian is just a cover for right-wingers.
Of course: the spending cuts were http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2011/assets/hist.pdf" relative to the economy-draining tax increases.In 1937 and 1938 FDR cut spending and raised taxes in order to balance the budget more, and both graphs agree: GDP went down and unemployment went up.
That's not only nonsense, it contradicts what you said above. Raising taxes hardly qualifies as "letting the free market do its thing". And you can't credit FDR policy for the economy initially doing what one would expect it to do faster without government intervention, based on the history of economic downturns.Keynesian or not, whatever it was FDR was doing was working, and when he tried to do the other thing (back out and let the free market do its thing) the unemployment numbers went up, and growth not only stopped, but became shrinkage.
A better analogy would be claiming that someone banging on your cast with a hammer helped it, after it takes 9 weeks instead of 7 to heal.Saying "It could have been faster" is like saying your doctor prolonged your pain because it took 9 weeks for your leg to heal instead of 7.
Al68 said:Otherwise, I really just wanted to point out that the science of economics has been politically and ideologically divided every since Keynes hit the scene. It's no longer a science in the way physics or chemistry is.
WhoWee said:Well - IMO - leaders lead. If he wants advice he should talk to his military leaders - I assume you're talking about the political debate?
turbo-1 said:There may be some need for action as these vets return. If their employers have hired replacements or eliminated their jobs and refuse to re-hire them, there could be some complications. There are also a lot of folks that had their own businesses and had to give them up and/or leave them in other hands while they served us overseas. They may need training and/or financial assistance (loan guarantees, perhaps) in order to rebuild.
If you meet the eligibility criteria discussed above, you have seven basic entitlements:
a. Prompt reinstatement.
b. Accrued seniority, as if you had been continuously employed.
c. Status.
d. Health insurance coverage.
e. Other non-seniority benefits, as if you had been on a furlough or leave of absence.
f. Training or retraining and other accommodations.
g. Special protection against discharge, except for cause.
WhoWee said:Who said the President doesn't have a clear (emergency?) energy policy?
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/06/23/6926118-targeting-gas-prices-obama-administration-taps-strategic-oil-reserve
"Decisions to withdraw crude oil from the reserve, which the department calls "a key tool of foreign policy," are made by the president in the event of an "energy emergency." Prior to today's announcement, the reserve has been used under these circumstances just twice -- during Operation Desert Storm in 1991 and after Hurricane Katrina in 2005."
IMO - the emergency in this case is poor polling results in accordance with gas prices?
BobG said:IMO - we won't see drastic drops in prices at the pump. Generally speaking, this will result in a sharp drop in oil prices for gasoline retailers, but a very gradual downslope in the price of gasoline prices for customers. If there is such a thing as price gouging by gasoline companies, it's being very slow to drop retail prices when oil prices drop. There just isn't as much pressure from consumers when prices are going down.
If Obama somehow puts pressure on retailers to drop the price as fast as oil prices drop (either giving them bad PR or hint at threats to reduce oil subsidies/tax breaks, etc), then I would consider that a surprise success.
WhoWee said:Isn't the amount released a 2 day equivalent supply?
BobG said:It doesn't have to replace an entire day's oil supply. It has to replace the 1.5 million barrels per day that Libya's not producing. Additionally, the 30 mil that the US will release is just half the total that the IEA (including the US) will release. Essentially, that's enough to cover the Libya gap for 40 days.
Hopefully, the release will have a greater effect on prices than it will the overall oil supply, since the loss of Libyan oil seems to have had a much greater impact on prices than such a small gap would be expected to have. At least a few think the Libya gap fueled speculation on the oil market and that the speculation had more effect on prices than the loss of Libya's oil.
The announcement has already driven crude oil prices down about $6.50 a barrel. Of course, the announcement also helped drive down stock prices, too, but a couple other things helped with the latter. It's trade-off, don't you know. Would you rather have a healthy 401k or a full gas tank?
WhoWee said:The President better hope the Saudi's approve of his move (and taking credit for a price change) - or we might see a cut in production.
http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jun/10/business/la-fi-saudioil-20110610
Ivan Seeking said:Actually, the Saudi's had tried to increase production but other OPEC members rejected the motion.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-06-08/saudis-face-opposition-to-possible-opec-increase.html
WhoWee said:That is not good news either - let's hope this isn't their excuse to re-align with their OPEC brothers.
Ivan Seeking said:Being mainly a product of the 70s and OPEC induced gas shortages, I took this as a good thing. Frankly, I would prefer they allow the prices to stay high. This is the only way we will ever end our reliance on oil.
WhoWee said:Please tell us it's because you believe strongly in bio-fuel technology - not because you favor electric cars powered by solar/wind.
Ivan Seeking said:I dedicated two years of my life to the algae biofuel option.
While it [algae derived fuel] is too big of a challenge for the little guy [you needs $billions, not $millions to do this], I am convinced this or a similar technology is a critical component of our energy future.
While wind and solar have their place, imo we can't solve the energy problem without biofuels.