ShcShc11

http://oregoneconomicanalysis.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/rr_employment.jpg The red line is the U.S Cheers!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-19577434 "Though his American critics often accuse the US President of being a socialist or Marxist, some observers have recently come to another conclusion: Barack Obama is a Tory. Though President Obama is a Democrat, and thus more likely to embrace left-leaning political positions than the American Right, he's drawn repeated comparisons to members of England's Conservative party. For some expatriates, the president's centrist response to an increasingly activist Republican opposition makes him a conservative in the mould of the Tory party." Cheers! Shc

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/09/18/in-new-tape-romney-casts-doubt-on-peace-in-israel/?hpt=hp_t1 A clip of Mitt Romney speaking at a private fund-raiser in May shows the GOP presidential candidate questioning the prospect of ever reaching peace between Israelis and Palestinians, calling a path to a solution in the region "almost unthinkable to accomplish."

lol so keen on Bush huh Let's answer this with another comparison: Lehman Brothers Investment Management Director George Herbert Walker IV George Herbert Walker is a supporter of aggressive monetary policy in times of hard recessions. Yet he was at the heart of the Lehman Brothers collapse of 2008. Is Mr. Walker a genius because he is correct in the assessment that monetary policy is needed in times of recession? Thanks and Cheers!

LOL. you guys got so politicized, its incredible. The fact I am trying to point out here is QE isin't this controversial, disputed notion. Its not this "artificial boost, sugar high". Everyone (from economic advisors on BOTH parties) recognizes that QE is an essential part to recover from 2008 Great Depression bust. ...people whine about the economy without having any real pre-conception of what monetary policies actually do (without any real understanding of how money actually works). Politics these days (especially politicized economics), just became catch phrases and slogans similar to 1984.

What does that mean? Its advocating for QUANTITATIVE EASING. Who is the author of that? Harvard’s N. Gregory Mankiw, former George W. Bush's economic advisor. WHO IS Gregory Mankiw? Mr Mankiw is ROMNEY'S economic advisor. So this whole hate on quantitative easing (QE) is so damn intellectually backward. Fact is: BOTH Democrats and Republicans KNOW it is part of the answer. Mankiw advocated a much MORE aggressive Fed policy than the one announced last week. If they say otherwise, its only for political points. Economic advisors of both Romney and Obama are very pro-QE. Just saying' Cheers!

lol another republican have misspoken. but honestly who cares lol. We know what "he meant". Its just another version of Obama's lipstick on a pig comment of 2008

This isin't just the U.S of course (many other countries such as the U.K are like this too). But whether you are a democrat or a republican, you have to admit that the U.S is like a child with deep self-esteem issues. Someone who constantly overthinks. ... who constantly criticizes himself over worthless details. ... who blames others for their problems, but deep inside knows they are the one to be blamed. ... who doubts everything and unwilling to take any actions ... and because he doubts everything, is unwilling to dream any real ambition http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WlGemHL5vLY Just a random thought

We're waiting.... where do you think the 700B$ savings come from? Cheers! Shc

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/09/07/we-spend-750-billion-on-unnecessary-health-care-two-charts-explain-why/ Affordable Health Care Act addresses these issues... Pretty interesting. Cheers! Shc

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/19537693

http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/827/realwealth.jpg/ Real net worth of households per capita. ... There is this constant fingerpointing yet there was no real wealth creation during 2000-2008. Everything that has been gained was gone in a matter of months. There was simply no real wealth creation during those eight years (it was essentially a ponzi-style economy). See the link: we can see what happened with the housing bust which is why conventional monetary policy wasn't and still isin't enough. So it boggles my mind that there is so much fingerpointing yet a total opposition to unconventional monetary policy (remember when they wanted Ben Bernanke to be "hanged" and ending up playing the blame game).. Cheers! Shc

Just curious, Had Jon Huntsman won the GOP nomination, the election would have long been decided by now. If you could, would you go back for someone moderate like Jon Huntsman? Cheers! Shc

The FT/Economist Global Business Barometer is pretty much used at least every quarter for politicians over the world (i.e: not just your avg random survey or poll). http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/fc327a52-e7ac-11e1-8686-00144feab49a.html#axzz23jTCmmN5 Cheers!

just nickels and dimes in comparison to the total amount of money spent in a political campaign. ...fix the root instead (the outlandish money in politics).

http://www.kff.org/insurance/snapshot/oecd042111.cfm

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/cnn-contributor-romney-has-0-black-support-because-he-calculated-he-doesnt-need-blacks-or-latinos/ I can understand Mitt wouldn't be favoured within the African-American community, but ... 0%?

eee... can't comment much on it but hopefully you guys got out alright! Couldn't have been pleasant for the client.

look under the CBO.

cough cough http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/08/30/in-ryan-critique-of-obama-omissions-help-make-the-case/?smid=FB-nytimes&WT.mc_id=PO-E-FB-SM-LIN-IRC-083012-NYT-NA&WT.mc_ev=click GOP doing everything to make a lie seem legit. Cheers! Shc

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/29/paul-ryan-gm-plant_n_1841723.html?utm_hp_ref=fb&src=sp&comm_ref=false#sb=602564,b=facebook http://www.tnr.com/blog/plank/106730/ryan-most-dishonest-convention-speech-five-lies-gm-medicare-deficit-medicaid Fact-checks... Cheers! Shc

http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/29/opinion/bergen-obama-osama-books/index.html?hpt=hp_c2 Peter Bergen on the Osama raid. Cheers! Shc

Thanks for sharing that. I forget the name of the condition, but it's one where you keep spending and it doesn't make any difference (liquidity trap?). If that's the case, why keep spending? Where's the limit to the spending? Sure this govt has a choice. They could change their policies and allow people to get back to work. The Obama administration has shut down oil exploration. My uncle, who has worked for 30 years in the gulf, hasn't worked in over a year. A good friend of mine is head of Gulf operations for a major oil company. They haven't had a license issued to them in a long time. Revenue from oil explorations (license, fees, taxes) used to be the 2nd highest revenue stream to the government. Personally, I agree that there needs to be de-regulation in certain industries (e.g: Keystone oil pipeline). Its not the main cause that is preventing hiring but it would certainly help. ... Its a bit like ''taxing the rich'' to help with deficit; it will most definitely help, but it definitely won't be sufficient by itself. so yes there should be dereg, but then the question is: ''which ones''. Cheers! Shc

What am I missing? How is this going to get us out of the liquidity trap? QE is essentially an unconventional monetary policy more or less used in emergencies or special scenarios. It emulates like lowering the interest rate of a (conventional) monetary policy. But because the Fed can't lower interest rate (already at near-zero, can't go into negative), they are using QE instead. Liquidity trap is when people have much more incentive to save than to spend in the economy (e.g: companies making a lot of profits but are hogging money is not because they are evil, but because there's not enough demand in the economy). Usually with interest rates, we can fix that by discouraging people to save and playing with the money supply. QE's goal is discourage savings and encourage spending (thus more demand in the economy and thus companies have more incentive to invest in new machineries, etc...) Cheers!

And? That would be a tax system's problem. The thing is: if an economy goes well, the rich would disproportionately be the beneficiaries as well. There were stats in 2010 that showed that people who suffered disproportionately in the Great Recession (up to March 2009) were the rich (in terms of %). Based on your logics, we should encourage a recession and discourage economic recovery because it disproportionately affects the rich? Of course not. If its such a problem, go straight for the cause (i.e: the tax system). But then we'l just be going into a long-discussion of ''what people are entitled to'' and someone will end up bringing the simplified beer tax story. Another allusion of the ''we are under credit card''. Not fixing the economy has its long-term effects. The longer one stays unemployed, the less employable he is. The less start a college graduate gets, he or she will receive a less-successful career (this is a fact done by studies). So this comparison to cocaine is just false. Its one of those comparisons where we think its true (it sounds true!) but has no reality in a real-life scenario. Yes and why is it an ill conceived idea? Because it prevents the peripheries from augmenting their money supply in times of recession. These countries are essentially living as if they were under the gold standard and/or pegged to a currency they can't control (ESPECIALLY the money supply). If you think 24% Spanish-style unemployment is good for the middle and poor class........... Remember what BANKIA president said: ''if only Spain had 1/5 of what Ben Bernanke can do!'' Cheers! Shc