My socialoid cousin sends me email links to various articles of interest, discussing various things political, social, scientific, and suchlike. One particular winner came over the transom today and I just thought I'd share my interlineated replies on the views espoused by Sparky, the Wonder Analyst.
The original article is at http://tinyurl.com/39zj8m
I will have to apologize for not being able to get it set up as a link.
Adam's "analysis," and I use the term loosely, is marked by an arrow, like so:
> I am an unthinking shill for the Democratic Party.
With my responses and addenda afterwards.
10 Surprising Economic Implications of a Barack Obama Presidency
March 20th, 2008
By Adam Kritzer> 10 Surprising Economic Implications of a Barack Obama Presidency
I am breathless with anticipation. Let's have a look, shall we?
> The American presidential election is rapidly drawing near.
Captain Obvious has taught him well.
>The
> race is becoming more intense and the field of candidates has
> narrowed to such that a detailed look at each of their platforms
> makes sense.
D'ya think? But what does their "platform" have to do with what they actually can/will do? Oh well, onward into the fog:
> The focus of this article is on Barack Obama,
I would never have guessed that from the title, thanks for the point-out!
> one of
> the leading contenders for the Democratic Party’s nomination.
No kidding?!?!?! Really?!?!?!
Busted for impersonating a lawyer - he's obviously being paid by the word.
> Of
> primary interest for traders in the forex markets is his economic
> policy,
Because nobody ELSE cares.
> though there is significant overlap between his positions
> on taxes, trade, and the economy. In addition, his proposed health
> plan and energy plan, for example, both carry important economic
> implications,
Poverty for all and a faster road to total national bankruptcy, for instance.
> and hence should be considered within the context of
> how his presidency would bear on the US economy.
"Otherwise I won't make my magic 10 count."
> Since his platform is broad, complex, and often nuanced,
IOW, anybody can read anything he wants in it, so as to see Obama as "him" and therefore activate the sympathetic parts of the brain.
> we have
> distilled it into ten more manageable subdivisions, which are laid
> out below.
Good thing he told me, otherwise I would have stopped reading right here and wondered where the heck the "list" was. Gotta be a Liberal - he thinks I need to be led by the hand to the obvious.
> 1. Increased Tax Equity:
Flat tax? Seventeen percent for everybody across the board? That's equitable.
> Mr. Obama’s tax policy typifies the
> liberal stance of his party, favoring a system that is equitable
> and progressive, above all else.
Can you say "contradiction in terms?" It's either "equitable" or it's "progressive." You can't have both. And since the word "liberal" was used, I can bet which of the two it's gonna be.
> The core component of is tax policy would bring tax relief to the middle-class.
How about tax relief to EVERYBODY? Wouldn't that be more "equitable?"
>Whether he would pay for this “relief” through a tax increase on the upper class or
Oh yeah, increasing taxes on others, that's "equitable." Not to mention the socialoid code word of "paying" for tax relief, as though the money was ALL Obama's and he simply got to decide how much of it to return to us.
> through budget cuts is uncertain. It will not be financed through a
> bond issue (increase in government debt), as he has pledged to
> balance the budget.
And if he breaks that pledge, and is thereby forsworn, can we have him branded as an oathbreaker and removed from polite society into the wilderness?
Better still, would he have the honor to do it himself?
Yah, I didn't think so either.
> [More on this below]. In addition, Mr. Obama
> has pledged to eliminate so-called “tax havens” for the wealthy and
> loopholes in the tax code exploited by special interest groups. It
> is expected that this increase in tax revenues will partially
> offset the middle class tax cut.
A flat 17 percent tax would do that nicely. And equitably. But somehow I suspect that the tax code will nevertheless continue to grow under an Obama regime.
> How Mr. Obama’s tax policy would impact economic growth defies
> prediction.
ORLY? Let me take a swing at it....I predict that we'd be royally screwed.
There. That wasn't so hard at all. Smart people can predict most anything, and I'll bet that my prediction is far more accurate than whatever this sycophant might think.
> Subscribers to the infamous “Laffer Curve” would argue
> that a fall in middle-class tax rates would theoretically increase
> unemployment and hence, increase government tax revenues.
That makes no sense whatsoever, as the Laffer Curve (note the lack of quotes and need for any snarky adjectives when discussing a normal economic concept) deals with optimizing government revenues and has nothing to do with unemployment. But a good Liberal has to work "increase unemployment" into any scare piece he happens to be writing, I believe it's a contractual obligation.
Maybe he meant to say "according to the theory behind the Laffer Curve, a decrease in middle class tax rates would increase government revenue." Which, if he actually understood the concept, may or may not be the case, as we could well be at the optimum point on the Laffer Curve now.
> However,
> since America’s wealthy contribute a disproportionately large share
> to the coffers of the Federal government, a tax increase on the
> rich could theoretically lead to a decline in government tax
> receipts.
D'ya really think so, Sparky? How truly spiteful and uncharitable of them, to want to keep more of their own wealth and property.
> This idea remains controversial, and most politicians
> conveniently err on the side of the argument that is consistent
> with their politics. This lack of clarity means it’s inappropriate
> to comment definitively in this article.
Let me translate that for you, since as an attorney I am fluent in Obfuscatese. "I haven't a freakin' clue what I'm talking about here, I'm only rambling, I've spit out the code words as required by my Liberal Contract, and I'd like to move on before I sound even stupider than I do already."
> 2. Fair Trade: Barack Obama’s trade policy eschews both
> protectionism and unbridled globalization in favor of the more
> fashionable “fair trade.”
Yes, that's what I want in MY elected leadership. "Fashionable." Not "thoughtful." Not "experienced." I want "fashionable."
But this chucklehead has not disqualified himself on this point yet, so let's read further:
> Insofar as trade is conducted fairly, he is an advocate.
Ya know, I used to write crap like this in fifth grade, when they'd give you those five hundred word essays and you had to puff it up to make word count.
Me, personally, I'm an advocate of unfair trade. I want to give the least amount of my own stuff to get the most I can of the other guy's stuff. That's called "shopping at sales" and "buying at discount" out here in the "unfashionable" Real World.
> On the other hand, when governments are belived to
Spell check. Get it. Use it. If you can't do it yourself, at least try and have the computer do it for you.
> use unfair tactics, such as subsidies, dumping, and exchange rate
> manipulation, he favors countervailing efforts to block such trade.
> For example
American dairy, wheat, sugar and peanut subsidies, tariffs on imported steel, and pressuring other countries to mess up their own currency just because ours is in the toilet.
I'm sorry, I just made that part up. We know Obama won't be ending any of those unfair tactics, it's only OTHER countries' unfair tactics that he opposes, I'm sure. Let us return to the actual drivel in progress:
> he has vocally argued that the perceived
Sparky, "undervaluation" (whatever the heck that null term is) either is, or it isn't. There's no such thing as "perceived undervaluation" except in the "mind" of someone who really doesn't understand, but wants to pretend he's smarter than he is.
> undervaluation of the Chinese Yuan
Saw that coming. Note to reader - I am editorializing on the fly here, I had not read down to this part of the article before making the comments above about "pressuring other countries."
> represents an indirect subsidy
Darned conniving scheming Orientals. They should pay DIRECT subsidies, like good AMERICANS do, right into the pockets of Archer Daniels Midland. Those indirect subsidies are probably smaller and more transistorized than Good American Subsidies, too.
Swine.
> for Chinese exporters, and he favors legislation that would “equalize” the playing field.
So....he's offering to write Chinese legislation now? I do appreciate that "equalize" is in quotes, because anyone with half a brain would realize that it's nothing at all like equal.
> In addition, Mr. Obama supports an increase in America’s domestic
> manufacturing sector and a consequent increase in employment.
The first thing we will do is reopen the platitude factories, because America needs more platitudes. The old ones, like this, are just wearing out and we really should be building our own!
> As
> with some of his other policies, he has been vague on how this
> would be achieved, whether through subsidies or tariffs, or a less
Equitable.
> conventional method.
Oh. My bad. I forgot that the word for "unequal trade in favor of America" was "fashionable." Or, in this case, "conventional."
> Finally, Mr. Obama supports energy
> independence, which basically translates into less reliance on
> foreign oil and gas producers.
Erm...."independence" means "reliance on nothing else," not "less reliance." If you mean "lowered reliance" then SAY it. Or qualify "independence" with an adjective like "greater" or "increased."
I'll wager he's not going to push to open ANWR to drilling, or the Florida Coast, or argue for more wind turbines off of the Kennedy compound. That's just a guess, though.
> In its entirety, this loosely sketched trade policy represents a
> significant break with the unapologetic free-trade stance of the
> current Bush administration.
Does this cretin even know what free trade is?
> While it is doubtful that many of
> these measures could be implemented, the trade imbalance could be
> singlehandedly reversed by a decrease in energy imports, which
> represents an estimated 35% of the total deficit.
Oh yes, the deficit is not created by mandated entitlement payments, subsidies for corporate welfare, or payments to the military-industrial-congressional-complex. It's created by me driving a Toyota.
> Classical
> economic theory dictates that in order to correct a trade
> imbalance, a nation’s currency must depreciate proportionately.
Classical economic theory says that Sparky here has a trade imbalance with his grocer. What's he doing to "correct" it?
> If
> this theory is applied to the US, a shrunken trade deficit achieved
> by an Obama presidency should stem the multi-year decline in the
> Dollar.
Ooookaaaay.....so we depreciate the dollar to stem a decline in the dollar. Got it.
Am I the only one who senses a flaw in the "logic" here?
> 3. Employment Versus Growth:
At the half, it's Employment 14, Growth 3.
> Mr. Obama’s criticisms of the Bush
> Administration’s economic policy have centered around the “jobless
> recovery,” whereby America’s economy enjoyed strong growth while
> the unemployment rate hardly budged.
I'm sure that his criticisms have centered around that, and many other things. Does either Sparky or Obama have a serious functional data set so as to make a statistically meaningful evaluation of the situation? Unemployment, for instance, should be figured as a ratio of Employed People to Total Population. The fact that newborn infants and dotards in nursing homes and Sparky here are not actually employed is irrelevant to figuring out Real Statistics. Unemployment may well be 20-30 percent...or more. So what? THAT kind of honesty would be far more useful and refreshing than massaging data by, for instance, not counting people who "have ceased looking for work."
>Accordingly, Mr Obama would
> prioritize employment over economic growth. Since free-trade is
> theorized to maximize growth, Mr. Obama’s “fair trade” policies
> could come at the expense of efficiency, and hence GDP growth.
In other words, again translating from the Obfuscatese, Mr. Obama would boink the nation over. Just where the heck does Sparky here think employment comes from, if not from economic growth?
Oh. That's right. He's a Liberal. Employment is, like money, mystically created by State fiat.
> On the other hand, he supports rural investment, increased access
> to capital among minorities and the poor, and improvements in the
> nation’s transportation infrastructure. All of these measures are
> consistent with both employment and growth.
ORLY? And just where will he get the money to do it, particularly if the economy isn't growing while the population is? Just to ask the first and most obvious question.
> In addition, his
> support for renewable energy, innovation (via an R&D tax credit),
That would be a "subsidy."
> and a greater emphasis on math and science education, aim to cement
> America’s status as the world’s leader in technology and
> innovation.
Yep, there are no schools here now teaching math and science. And there are no swarms of Asian students learning there...and then going home to innovate and technologate there, rather than here.
> The current flow of capital and labor (albeit not
> always ideas) favors developing countries, so Mr. Obama’s proposals
> are somewhat against the grain.
No, no, no. He's spot on. His policies will turn America into a Third World developing country, thus we can expect to see a flow of capital and labor coming in! The man is cunning, I tell ya!
> The payout for the US economy could
> be large but it could also be costly.
Huh?
> 4. Support for the environment: One of the recurring themes of Mr.
> Obama’s campaign is support for the environment.
I agree. We should have an environment. Not having an environment would be...well, that would be a vacuum, and we would both be abhorred by nature AND dead. Instead of just abhorred by nature, as Liberals believe.
>While
> environmentalists have delighted in promises of marine and forestry
> preservation, the direct economic implications are less cut-and-
> dried.
No, they're simple. If you preserve marine and forest environments, then there will be fewer or no jobs in those sectors, other than perhaps some modest growth in the "Preservation Industry" sector. Which tends to be government sponsored and tax-dollar paid, I would note in passing.
> It has long been argued that economic growth and concern for
Passive construction. Sign of a weak or losing argument.
> the environment are diametrically opposed. This notion is certainly
> belied by the boom in alternative energy, which is supported by
> Obama.
He supports the boom? The alternative energy? The notion?
Oh, and this "boom," Sparky...how much does it actually add to real energy, not just to feelgoodness?
> In addition, Obama’s proposed cap on carbon emissions could
> force businesses to become more efficient.
Or go out of business. Or go overseas. Either of which would seem to be "diametrically opposed" to the concept of growing the economy or increasing jobs.
> However, it could also
> come at the expense of output, as corporations curtail production
> to be meet more stringent environmental standards.
Yep, when you shut down and move to Shanghai, it certainly curtails production here.
> Finally, Mr. Obama is a staunch proponent of ethanol,
Another area we can finally agree on! Good wines, mostly, though an occasional beer is not out of the question and I've been known on rare occasions to go ten rounds with Jose Cuervo.
> part and parcel to his
> pursuit of energy independence. While this directly benefits the US
> economy,
Oh my yes, subsidies to ADM are most excellent for the US economy.
I'll bet sarcasm is wasted on Sparky, though.
> it has also been shown to increase food prices as land is
> diverted from food production to energy production.
So not only will there be food riots, but the rioters will have the gasohol to drive their cars to GET to the riots. That's government planning for you.
> Thus, while GDP
> would increase and the US would likely receive more foreign
> capital,
Wait, wait, wait...So Sparky here is admitting - and apparently in favor of? - more Chinese investment in the US?
> the purchasing power of US consumers as well as the value
> of the Dollar would be eroded.
Unless those consumers are ADM shareholders and executives, of course.
> 5. Expansion of Home Ownership:
We tried that. Can you say "subprime mortgage crisis?"
Unless, of course, Obama is simply promising everyone, courtesy of the State, "a house on every driveway."
> Barack Obama has promised to make home
> ownership both easier and more affordable, especially for poor
> families. Unfortunately, one of the byproducts of the current
> expansion of such housing has been the subprime lending crisis, one
> of the primary causes of the economic downturn. Of course, Mr.
> Obama has also pledged to crack down on so-called “predatory
> lending,” in which complex mortgage products with artificially low
> interest rates are used to lure unsuspecting borrowers.
So...the lenders should charge regular higher interest rates? No, then Sparky here would be whining about usury. Okay, all low rates, all the time? Great - until the banks have to pay more for energy, food, and taxes on the wealthy and then go out of business and can't afford to make any loans at all.
> 6. Skepticism of Business Establishment:
My, isn't that a bit of null wording. Sparky is definitely in trouble, regarding word count. Maybe he should have opted for a "Top Five" list.
> While not stated explicitly
> in his platform, Mr. Obama is generally opposed to “big business.”
Having owned and operated them himself and thus being personally acquainted.
I'm sorry, did I step on your strawman, Sparky?
> He has pledged to rein in predatory lending through increased
> regulation of mortgage companies. He uses hostile language to
> describe healthcare insurance companies and managed care
> organizations, which he views as part and parcel of the never-
> ending rise in healthcare costs. In addition, he will fight special
> interest lobbies generally, and the mortgage lobby specifically by
> making it easier for individuals to declare bankruptcy. Currently,
> there is a loophole which exempts certain obligations (namely
> mortgage payments) from re-negotiation during bankruptcy, and
> presumably this would be modified. Then there is his concern about
> M&A between large companies, which he perceives as anti-competitive
> and limiting of consumer choice. The icing on the cake will take
> the form of an investigation of conflicts of interest on Wall
> Street, where consolidation has created situations where pre-
> existing client relationships can compromise objectivity.
Blah blah blah. You could have said "Obama is a typical socialist who hates individual liberty and the free market, favoring State control of everything" and saved yourself a lot of typing there.
> In short, the the business establishment is dreading an Obama
> presidency,
So am I, for that matter.
> with its strict regulatory climate and consumer
> protections. Some analysts believe that the stock market performs
> better under Republican presidents because of the perceived
> friendliness with Wall Street, but ultimately economic factors will
> predominate, and good investors don’t put too much stock in the
> President’s ability to sway the markets.
That's why the Carter and Roosevelt years were such tearing economic successes.
> 7. Support for small businesses: It may come as a shock to those who
> have grown accustomed to the handful of large corporations
> dominating the business landscape that the brunt of the US economy
> is powered by small businesses.
Only if they're as ignorant as you, Sparkamundo.
>In fact, one of the few positions
> Mr. Obama shares with President Bush is his support for small
> businesses. Accordingly, he will use a combination of tax relief
"Subsidies and inequity." There, fixed that for ya.
> and healthcare subsidies
"Money taken from some to pay for what others want." There. More repairs.
No, Sparky, don't thank me. Keeping you honest is a tough job, but somebody has to do it.
> to facilitate growth in this vital sector of the economy.
Let me scroll back here.....okay, yep. Just what I thought. Up there in Section 3, we were told that Obama was going to prioritize employment over growth. Now he's back to "facilitating" growth. It would be nice if he'd make up his mind and decide just who the heck he wants to pander to - I'm getting positional whiplash watching the promises go back and forth.
> The healthcare subsidies will take the form of
> direct reimbursement for healthcare benefits paid by small
> businesses, many of whom are struggling to provide health insurance
> for their employees. This could prove difficult to implement
> because of the tremendous costs involved, and would need to be
> offset by cuts in other areas of the budget.
Like....Social Security? I ask innocently, of course.
> 8. Labor Equity: Unions remain a bastion of the Democratic Party,
Ain't that the truth. One of the nation's few real monopolies, a thing that socialists allegedly despise, and yet they revel in the support.
> and
> a large source of conflict with the Republican Party. To his
> credit, Mr. Obama’s position is somewhat more nuanced
"Waffling, so as to not honk off supporters." This language repair performed courtesy of "Honesty In Speech, Inc."
> than that of
> his Party. He supports a broad spectrum of labor rights, including
> enhanced protections for the right to unionize and promoting a work-
> life balance, perhaps by expanding the Family & Medical Leave Act
> which was signed into law during the Clinton administration. His
> final goal of a higher Federal minimum wage has been largely
> preempted by individual states, which have taken much initiative in
> this regard.
How about a hundred bucks an hour. That should be enough wage for anybody, right? If minimum wages are a good idea, for anybody but unions, that is, then let's not be pikers here.
> Labor rights are similar to environmental protections in that both
> are seen as antithetical to economic growth. Free-market economists
> are typically opposed to unions and wage floors because they
> necessitate wages higher than what the market would otherwise pay.
I am stunned, floored, flabbergasted and astounded. But I guess even a blind squirrel finds a nut once in awhile.
> Accordingly, Mr. Obama’s position represents a sop to the fear of
> cheap foreign labor (whether immigrants or workers abroad)
> percolating in the working class.
Percolating. Now there's a word you don't see every day. Let's see...in addition to the nicely nativist and fearmongering "cheap foreign labor," as I understand Obama's position he's going to force people to pay money that they otherwise wouldn't to people that he prefers. In other words, one of those "subsides" that he is supposedly not keen on - unless, of course, it's American. Then it's okay, because our subsidies are domestically constructed and thus superior to those cheap foreign imported subsidies.
> This jives with his fair-trade
> policy, which would prioritize domestic employment over efficiency.
Sort of the union logo in a nutshell.
> 9. Foreign Policy: Mr. Obama’s foreign policy would be decidedly
> less aggressive than that of the Bush administration. He favors
Bombing targets in Pakistan or somesuch, wasn't it? Let's Snopes that one....
> soft power, in the form of diplomacy and foreign aid, over the hard
> power of a strong military.
So the bombs would be delivered by embassy workers?
> Controversially, he has volunteered to
> meet with all foreign heads of state without any prerequisites. At
> the same time, he has also pledged to continue expanding the
> military, both in terms of manpower and technology.
Gotta suck up to those MICC contributions and voters, after all.
> The economic implications of foreign policy cannot be overstated.
NO! Say it's not so!!! Please don't tell me that spending billions or even trillions of dollars on military adventures Over There is going to make a difference Over Here! That would be as bad as the terrorists following us home, like little forlorn bomb-toting puppies!
> Due in part to the ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, it now
> costs the US government an estimated $1 Trillion per year to
> conduct its foreign policy.
I guess that technically you could describe aggressive wars of empire as "foreign policy."
> In addition, it has been estimated that
> the total costs of the war in Iraq could exceed $3 Trillion by the
> time the US has successfully extricated itself. The majority of
> this outlay will be financed by debt. Thus, a Barack Obama
> presidency can be expected to increase the budget of the defense
> department but decrease discretionary military spending.
So Obama will BE the Defense Department? Notice the more traditional capitalization of the proper noun.
> In
> addition, the US maintains embargoes and/or limits trade with
> certain nations for political reasons, which could also change if
> Mr. Obama was elected.
We'd maintain the embargoes and limit trade for economic reasons, instead!
> Finally, the price of oil is connected with geopolitical events.
I'm wearing out my ORLY keys here.
> This is exacerbated by the fact that a
> significant portion of the world’s oil is controlled by regimes
> that are viewed as hostile by the US.
The American government and its EPA?
> This is reflected in the
> significant risk premium (estimated by some analysts at $20 per
> barrel) currently built into the price of oil. Improved relations
> with these governments (Venezuela, Iran, Nigeria) could lead to a
> reduction in the price of oil.
Weren't we discussing "energy independence" some time ago? Like, a hundred lines upthread here?
> 10. Fiscal Discipline: From an economic standpoint, fiscal policy
> represents a natural segue way from foreign policy, because it is
> among the largest components of the Federal budget.
Fiscal policy is among the largest components of the federal budget. Oooookaaaaay.....
> Mr. Obama has
> pledged to restore fiscal discipline by curtailing earmarks
Obama is not a legislator and cannot "curtail earmarks." Will he just agree to veto any budget that has earmarks in it? Didn't think so.
> and re-
> introducing a system of PAYGO into the budgeting process, whereby
> spending increases must be simultaneously offset before they can be
> approved.
How about "no more debt." Wouldn't that be better? And simpler?
> Social security will be shored-up, and further reinforced
> through incentives to save for retirement.
Oh, so Obama is for directed retirement savings?
Didn't think so. That Ponzi Scheme is untouchable. The only shoring up that is going to happen is an increase in tax burdens on the few remaining people working in the Forest Preservation Industry, since the rest of us will be unemployed as a result of everything moving overseas to escape the regulatory nightmare that an Obama regime would represent.
> Lower medicare costs
> will be obtained through negotiations with healthcare insurance and
> pharmaceutical companies.
"Nice little company you got there. Be a shame if anything happened to it."
> Overall, the goal is a modest
Impossible, given the pandering nature of the State.
> one: a balanced budget.
I'll leave off his closing remarks.
Quite frankly, I didn't see any "surprising" economic implications. He is predicting that Obama will be a typical Liberal Democrat, averse to the free market, hating individual liberty, wanting to regulate everything that he can and make the State the supreme arbiter of all things human related. No surprise here, just a boatload of "meh, Liberal politics as usual."
Oh, and really, really crappy writing and "thought" in the original article.
0 comments:
Post a Comment