U.S. Politics 29

[Asarlai]

If you have to resort to decrying automation that has existed since the 60s, you've hit rock bottom. I have heard no one argue this specific era of sustained high unemployment is due to increased automation.

Every second he laments the bad economy stands in contrast to the alternatives offered by his opponent (i.e. tax/spending cuts). Even if they are completely misguided, they are espousing a plan while he looks like a Cateresque whiner.

You're acting as if one "Fox Nation" article encapsulates the full extent of the President's actions on the economy.

The Republicans are simply refusing to raise the debt ceiling (thus shutting down the government) if Obama doesn't give in to demands that are fairly ridiculous. For a party saying we spend too much, they seem all too eager to eliminate what sources of income the government does have by cutting taxes.

And remember; everything is fair game for spending cuts. EVERYTHING. (Except bloated defense spending...)

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Asarlai,

Defense spending should definitely be on the table.

[Asarlai]

Asarlai,

Defense spending should definitely be on the table.

Good. At this point, we spend so much more than any other country that it's grown ridiculous. We have safely ensured that our decline will not come from a conventional war.

Well, unless you count an economic decline as being caused by war.

[awesome possum]

If you have to resort to decrying automation that has existed since the 60s, you've hit rock bottom. I have heard no one argue this specific era of sustained high unemployment is due to increased automation.

If you honestly believe Obama was blaming the economy on "robots" then you're as big a fool as you so desperately want to believe he is.

The facts are plain. We are a more automated society. There are jobs in just about every single industry that used to require anywhere from one to thousands of people and which are now performed by machines. That's great for innovation and companies who only have to pay for the machines and repair issues instead of those thousands of employees. It's not great for a country with a growing population because it means a shrinking job market.

Every second he laments the bad economy stands in contrast to the alternatives offered by his opponent (i.e. tax/spending cuts). Even if they are completely misguided, they are espousing a plan while he looks like a Cateresque whiner.

I love this. You admit that tax and spending cuts may be misguided, yet continue to ignore the fact that outside of offering terrible and ridiculous solutions that will never be implemented (or will horribly fail if they were), the GOP's only two constant positions are to take the opposite position of Obama and hamstring him whenever possible.

[ThinkerX]

BOA is feeling the heat

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/business/2011/06/bank-america-fraud-investigation-hindered/38793/

The battle is intensifying to hold Bank of America accountable for faulty foreclosures that may have scammed taxpayers out of billions is intensifying on a state level. In a lawsuit filed by the state of Arizona against the nation's largest lender, a federal auditor says that Bank of America "significantly hindered" a review of its foreclosure practices on loans insured by the Federal Housing Administration.

William Nixon, a fraud examiner with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, accuses the bank of withholding key information and delaying the investigation. In court-submitted document filed in court June 8 but obtained by the press Monday, Nixon says that Bank of America failed to comply with subpoenas, kept his team from reviewing the bank's documents unit, and in one instance, only supplied the watchdog unit with only one third of the records requested. At one point last year, the bank's "reluctance" to comply with requests forced Nixon to request help from the Justice Department

This is merely one of a number of such articles. The issue that is being brought up more and more deals with mortgages that were 'securitized' without appropriate legal documentation. Once verified, BOA and other major banks are looking at forking over huge sums in investor lawsuits.

There was another article (which I seem to have lost track of) claiming that many (most) of the transactions at the Feds super low rate discount window actually went to foriegn banks, not predominantly US institutions. In essence, the US bailed out Europe...which raises other questions.

[14th Dragon]

Obama blames unemployment on robots:

Well it is certainly one of the reasons that productivty has had a significant rise. The low intrest rates have allowed buisness to invesat in more effecient equipment and squeeze more out of less. Which is why the increase in production has not seen a big increase in employment. I love how a fact somehow becomes a point of contention to you people.

That being the case what do we do about it?

I know you did not ask me Scot but I am a dog pile jumper.

Increase aggragate demand past the point where increases in productivity or reduction in inventory can compensate. Until buisness feel they need to ramp up production of something, they are not going to hire. (Easy to say, hard to do.)

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

I don't know where you've been but neither evolution nor climate change are in dispute, and it doesn't take more than 5 minutes on Wikipedia to prove easily, quickly, and publicly that the shit Kent Hovind, Banana man or VenomfangX says is utterly wrong. Just like this idiot.

Every once in a while, some of you guys still surprise me with your degree of closed-mindedness. You just pegged that meter, so congratulations.

Here's a quick lesson for you -- if people disagree with you on an issue, the issue is still in dispute by definition, even if you think their reasons are bogus.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Well it is certainly one of the reasons that productivty has had a significant rise.

No. Productivity is based on output per hour, which means it goes up the more workers you lay off. Companies in the process of laying off people during an economic downturn rarely make substantial investments in capital equipment because their bottom lines are hurting, and there isn't the demand to support such investments. They just tend to lay off people who weren't all that busy anyway.

The low intrest rates have allowed buisness to invest in more effecient equipment and squeeze more out of less.

Technically, yes. It does allow it. But do you have any data supporting the idea that there has been a surge in labor-saving capital investment during this recession? Because I've seen nothing of the sort.

Which is why the increase in production has not seen a big increase in employment. I love how a fact somehow becomes a point of contention to you people.

To what increase in production are you referring? GDP growth is anemic.

Increase aggragate demand past the point where increases in productivity or reduction in inventory can compensate. Until buisness feel they need to ramp up production of something, they are not going to hire. (Easy to say, hard to do.)

Well, wait a minute here. Aren't you and the President both arguing that one reason for the current sluggish job growth is that manufacturers are investing in labor-saving capital investments rather than hiring people? But if aggregate demand is so sluggish, and there is no need for businesses to ramp up production, why in the world would they be making significant capital investments?

[Swordfish]

Well it is certainly one of the reasons that productivty has had a significant rise. The low intrest rates have allowed buisness to invesat in more effecient equipment and squeeze more out of less. Which is why the increase in production has not seen a big increase in employment. I love how a fact somehow becomes a point of contention to you people.

Is there any data to back this up?

Not saying you're wrong, I just haven't seen any numbers applied to it, and I have no idea how much automation has increased over the past couple years.

[TrueMetis]

Every once in a while, some of you guys still surprise me with your degree of closed-mindedness. You just pegged that meter, so congratulations.

Here's a quick lesson for you -- if people disagree with you on an issue, the issue is still in dispute by definition, even if you think their reasons are bogus.

A man can disagree whether or not the earth is round, it does not make whether or not the earth is round disputed.

Idiots not understanding something or refusing to understand based on an ancient book do not put subjects into dispute, but this is a discussion for another thread.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

A man can disagree whether or not the earth is round, it does not make whether or not the earth is round disputed.

Actually, it does. It is disputed by loonies. By definition.

And the relevance to this particular point is that AGW opponents themselves still consider the issue in dispute. Therefore, they have an incentive to lie about facts that support their position, if they think they can get away with it. The same applies to AGW proponents. Proponents also have an incentive to lie/mischaracterize evidence if they believe it will swing more opinions over to their side. Because whatever people may think the "facts" are, there isn't a sufficient political consensus to enact the type of legislation AGW proponents advocate. So, they have an incentive to lie/mischaracterize as well. That's not a value judgment -- it's just reality.

This doesn't apply to Kyl because there is no benefit to making a false factual statement during a debate that isn't going to change any minds, and is going to be easily and quickly exposed.

[snake]

Just read an interesting article by Stephen Roach.

This guy seems to think the US economy is not going to recover anytime soon and that polict makers don't know what they're doing anyway.

Washington policymakers are doing everything they can to forestall rational economic adjustments. The Federal Reserve has conducted two rounds of quantitative easing in an effort to get consumers to start spending the wealth effects of a policy-induced rebound in equities. The Congress and the White House have embraced home-foreclosure containment programs and other forms of debt forgiveness.

The aim is to get zombie consumers to ignore their festering problems and start spending again - irrespective of the wrenching balance sheet damage they suffered in the Great Recession. The subtext is Washington condones a revival of reckless behaviour

Unsurprisingly, U.S. consumers are smarter than U.S. policymakers. With fiscal and monetary policies on unsustainable paths, households know that these life support efforts are temporary, at best. That means they need to take matters in their own hands.

Spending retrenchment, deleveraging, and saving are the only sustainable options for America’s zombie consumers.

So FLOW, whatcha think?

[TrueMetis]

This doesn't apply to Kyl because there is no benefit to making a false factual statement during a debate that isn't going to change any minds, and is going to be easily and quickly exposed.

This could just as easily be about evolution or climate change, doesn't stop people from lying. People make easy to expose lies during debates all the time about evolution or climate change, and they use the same lame excuses you do.

ETA and it works for the same reasons, people don't bother checking sources, people don't care, people believe what the liars said anyway because it suites their worldview.

[Swordfish]

I'll try and find it, but there was some column recently which implied that business-owners everywhere were admitting behind closed doors that they'd used the economic downturn to trim the fat, so to speak. That's the numerical data that you asked for, but it's part of the explanation.

Is it? Really, as FLOW said, the question is about capital investment in automation. Maybe that's what you're talking about?

Then there's the pretty common narrative about how big business has been just as if not more productive in the last few years despite the job cuts. They are getting more productivity per person than they were before. Just anecdotally, I cannot see how this could not be true. Everyone is freaked out that they're next and people are working harder. Companies are also redesigning positions to take on more work. And then there's the whole meme about how they're sitting on a record amount of cash.

Right, which would seem to be in direct contradiction with the notion of large scale capital investment in automation.

This could just as easily be about evolution or climate change, doesn't stop people from lying. People make easy to expose lies during debates all the time about evolution or climate change, and they use the same lame excuses you do.

ETA and it works for the same reasons, people don't bother checking sources, people don't care, people believe what the liars said anyway because it suites their worldview.

Same is true of the ACA. We had a discussion not too long ago about an interview with, I think Reid on NPR where he was obviously fabricating numbers in order to make it more appealing.

Shockingly, it was the left that used those in that case. There was nary a hint of outrage about it.

:dunno:

ETA: You can read about it here: Good stuff....

Here is one highlight:

Shryke:

How disingenous of you, especially considering I talked about the very CBO report he was referencing just like 2 posts above you.

The one which, fyi, says repealing the ACA will increase the deficit by like ~$200 billion.

So, at worst, he's exaggerating to a huge extent.

:laugh:

[Shryke]

Just read an interesting article by Stephen Roach.

This guy seems to think the US economy is not going to recover anytime soon and that polict makers don't know what they're doing anyway.

So FLOW, whatcha think?

He's probably right on both counts, but he's got some very strange ideas about what's going on. Shit like this:

The aim is to get zombie consumers to ignore their festering problems and start spending again - irrespective of the wrenching balance sheet damage they suffered in the Great Recession. The subtext is Washington condones a revival of reckless behaviour.

Unsurprisingly, U.S. consumers are smarter than U.S. policymakers. With fiscal and monetary policies on unsustainable paths, households know that these life support efforts are temporary, at best. That means they need to take matters in their own hands. Sub-par labour income generation and historically high unemployment and under-employment for 24 million Americans only underscore the need for belt-tightening.

It's like "spending is down and the economy is in the shitter. Business won't expand because the demand isn't there. That's why Americans need to belt-tighten more!". Which is odd unless he's refering only to what American consumers rationally think the should do and not what America as a whole should be doing.

There's alot of bitching about Washington not knowing what to do (or just not doing it) but not real indication what he thinks they should do. Other then "Like Japan’s banks, Washington policymakers are doing everything they can to forestall rational economic adjustments." which I'm not even sure constitutes a policy suggestion.

[14th Dragon]

Is there any data to back this up?

Nytimes I will see if I can find the Commerce Department's report.

Since the recovery began, businesses spending on employees has grown 2 percent as equipment and software spending has swelled 26 percent, according to the Commerce Department. A capital rebound that sharp and a labor rebound that slow have been recorded only once before after the 1982 recession.

[Shryke]

ETA: You can read about it here: Good stuff....

Here is one highlight:

Shryke:

:laugh:

Ahh, your usual idiot hackjob again Swordfish. Maybe you should haev read one post lower:

He either read it wrong or is talking about something on top of the CBO report or is an idiot. Or a combination.

So ... exactly what I said above about Sen Kyl. In Reid's case, I suggest going with "idiot" personally.

Good try though, but read better next time.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

I'll try and find it, but there was some column recently which implied that business-owners everywhere were admitting behind closed doors that they'd used the economic downturn to trim the fat, so to speak. That's the numerical data that you asked for, but it's part of the explanation.

That's a different issue. Business are cutting back on people without replacing them with labor-saving devices. They're essentially making those that stay behind work harder. That's going to increase productivity, which is measured by output per hour worked. But that's different from capital investments that are intended to save labor costs. Businesses typically make those kind of investments much further down the road during recovery, not when demand is anemic and projected to remain so. As dumb as it is to hire new workers when there isn't the demand to support them, it is even dumber to make capital investments that generally take much longer to recoup.

That's not to say that some of that doesn't happen, because it happens all the time to some extent in industries or businesses that are doing better than average. But it certainly isn't what is going on generally now.

Then there's the pretty common narrative about how big business has been just as if not more productive in the last few years despite the job cuts. They are getting more productivity per person than they were before. Just anecdotally, I cannot see how this could not be true. Everyone is freaked out that they're next and people are working harder. Companies are also redesigning positions to take on more work. And then there's the whole meme about how they're sitting on a record amount of cash.

That's all true, but it has nothing to do with additional spending for automation. That's just forcing the same people to do more work with the same systems. The real story is that businesses are reluctant to expand capacity due to increasing demand either via hiring or via automation. THAT is the real problem.

[Swordfish]

Nytimes I will see if I can find the Commerce Department's report.

Thanks!

Ahh, your usual idiot hackjob again Swordfish. Maybe you should haev read one post lower:

So ... exactly what I said above about Sen Kyl. In Reid's case, I suggest going with "idiot" personally.

He either read it wrong or is talking about something on top of the CBO report or is an idiot. Or a combination.

Kyl's comment is just flat out false. Hyperbole would be if more then half of what PP did was abortion and Kyl claimed it was 90% or the like. 5% to 90% isn't hyperbole, it's false because it's taking the truth and claiming the opposite of that, not exaggerating it. "almost none of what PP does is abortions" becomes "almost all of what they do is abortions"? Really? Complete lie.

Right. Exactly the same!

:laugh:

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Nytimes I will see if I can find the Commerce Department's report.

Unfortunately for everyone, this isn't the 1983 recovery. Job growth in 1983 absolutely exploded, hacking more than 2 full percentage points off the unemployment rate.

You're always going to get a boost in capital spending a few years after the start of a downturn because equipment replacement, upgrading, etc. was put on hold during the downturn. You've got to make some capital investments just to replace shit that has worn out that wasn't replaced over the last few years. The reason for the unprecedented gap right now (26% v. 2%) isn't that the capital investment rate is abnormally high, but that the pace of hiring this far into a downturn is unusually low. That doesn't mean that there has been some widespread, unusual investments in labor-saving systems that have put people out of work.