Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I kept looking for signs of his skills in running an economy and they never appeared. Experience as a corporate raider requires different skills than the ones necessary for running an economy.
As the person in charge of operations at Bain, Romney has a very real understanding of how business is truly transacted in this country. It is not complicated, but one does not get this knowledge from text books or talking heads, or newspaper articles. Whether he would use this understanding for the betterment of the 99% of the electorate is what is in question. One can only guess because there is no way to look into his mind and his true intentions.
As the person in charge of operations at Bain, Romney has a very real understanding of how business is truly transacted in this country. It is not complicated, but one does not get this knowledge from text books or talking heads, or newspaper articles. Whether he would use this understanding for the betterment of the 99% of the electorate is what is in question. One can only guess because there is no way to look into his mind and his true intentions.
I worked for one of the largest consulting firms in the world. I gained a very real understanding of how business is truly transacted in this country. I did not learn how to run or improve an economy. Private equity and leveraged buyouts have never been shown to stimulate an economy.
I worked for one of the largest consulting firms in the world. I gained a very real understanding of how business is truly transacted in this country. I did not learn how to run or improve an economy. Private equity and leveraged buyouts have never been shown to stimulate an economy.
If Romney understands velocity of money and how it is created, he is way ahead of Krugman and Obama who believe that strong economies are built by putting the American people trillions of dollars in debt while make a few people on Wall Street whole by bailing them out %100 on their disgraceful investments. I think Obama was clueless and he let Geithner bail out his friends. Now we are all left holding the bag and it is far from over as the Federal Reserve continues to expand its balance sheet at an unprecedented rate. And make no mistake about it, every cent that is printed is coming right out of the hides of the middle class.
Liberals do not want to acknowledge it or even contemplate the possibility, but the seeds of the Tea Party (economic concerns about the way government is being used to transfer wealth to the ultra-rich has validity). If you were involved with decision making for large corporations, then you would know that there is no better a friend to any corporation than government contracts. I cringe at the talking heads on MSNBC as I do at those on Fox News. Once in a great while there is someone on CNBC who acknowledges what is really going on. The best source of information is the Economist (which endorsed Obama) and Sheil Bair's book .. a Republican who really cares about the people. Thumbs up to Bernie Sanders and Ron Paul for trying to do the right thing albeit from different philosophical perspectives.
If Romney understands velocity of money and how it is created, he is way ahead of Krugman and Obama who believe that strong economies are built by putting the American people trillions of dollars in debt while make a few people on Wall Street whole by bailing them out %100 on their disgraceful investments. I think Obama was clueless and he let Geithner bail out his friends. Now we are all left holding the bag and it is far from over as the Federal Reserve continues to expand its balance sheet at an unprecedented rate. And make no mistake about it, every cent that is printed is coming right out of the hides of the middle class.
Liberals do not want to acknowledge it or even contemplate the possibility, but the seeds of the Tea Party (economic concerns about the way government is being used to transfer wealth to the ultra-rich has validity). If you were involved with decision making for large corporations, then you would know that there is no better a friend to any corporation than government contracts. I cringe at the talking heads on MSNBC as I do at those on Fox News. Once in a great while there is someone on CNBC who acknowledges what is really going on. The best source of information is the Economist (which endorsed Obama) and Sheil Bair's book .. a Republican who really cares about the people. Thumbs up to Bernie Sanders and Ron Paul for trying to do the right thing albeit from different philosophical perspectives.
Famous Paul Krugman quotes from 2001 as he was begging the Fed to create the housing bubble.
- Die Zeit, Germany: (February 2001) - “During phases of weak growth there are always those who say that lower interest rates will not help. They overlook the fact that low interest rates act through several channels. For instance, more housing is built, which expands the building sector. You must ask the opposite question: why in the world shouldn’t you lower interest rates?”
- New York Times: (May 2, 2001) - "I’ve always favored the let-bygones-be-bygones view over the crime-and-punishment view. That is, I’ve always believed that a speculative bubble need not lead to a recession, as long as interest rates are cut quickly enough to stimulate alternative investments. But I had to face the fact that speculative bubbles usually are followed by recessions. My excuse has been that this was because the policy makers moved too slowly — that central banks were typically too slow to cut interest rates in the face of a burst bubble, giving the downturn time to build up a lot of momentum. That was why I, like many others, was frustrated at the smallish cut at the last Federal Open Market Committee meeting: I was pretty sure that Alan Greenspan had the tools to prevent a disastrous recession, but worried that he might be getting behind the curve.
However, let’s give credit where credit is due: Mr. Greenspan has cut rates since then. And while some of us may have been urging him to move even faster, the Fed’s four interest-rate cuts since the slowdown became apparent represent an unusually aggressive response by historical standards. It’s still not clear that Mr. Greenspan has caught up with the curve — let’s have at least one more rate cut, please — but the interest-rate cuts do, cross your fingers, seem to be having an effect.
If we succeed in avoiding recession, this will mark a big win for let- bygones-be-bygones, and a big loss for crime-and-punishment. And that will be very good news not just for this business cycle, but for business cycles to come."
- CNN: (July 18, 2001) - “KRUGMAN: I think frankly it’s got to be — business investment is not going to be the driving force in this recovery. It has to come from things like housing, things that have not been (UNINTELLIGIBLE).
DOBBS: We see, Paul, housing at near record levels, we see automobile purchases near record levels. The consumer is still very much in this economy. Can he or she — or I should say he and she, can they bring back this economy?
KRUGMAN: Well, as far as the arithmetic goes, yes, it is possible. Will the Fed cut interest rates enough? Will long-term rates fall enough to get the consumer, get the housing sector there in time? We don’t know”
- CNN: (August 8th, 2001) - “KRUGMAN: I’m a little depressed. You know, inventories, probably that’s over, the inventory slump. But you look at the things that could drive a recovery, business investment, nothing happening. Housing, long-term rates haven’t fallen enough to produce a boom there. The trade balance is going to get worst before it gets better because the dollar is still very strong. It’s not a happy picture.”
- New York Times: (August 14, 2001) - “Consumers, who already have low savings and high debt, probably can’t contribute much. But housing, which is highly sensitive to interest rates, could help lead a recovery…. But there has been a peculiar disconnect between Fed policy and the financial variables that affect housing and trade. Housing demand depends on long-term rather than short-term interest rates — and though the Fed has cut short rates from 6.5 to 3.75 percent since the beginning of the year, the 10-year rate is slightly higher than it was on Jan. 1…. Sooner or later, of course, investors will realize that 2001 isn’t 1998. When they do, mortgage rates and the dollar will come way down, and the conditions for a recovery led by housing and exports will be in place.
- New York Times: (Sept. 14, 2001) - The broken-window fallacy by professor Paul Krugman after 9/11: "Ghastly as it may seem to say this, the terror attack — like the original day of infamy, which brought an end to the Great Depression — could do some economic good." He went on to note how rebuilding would stimulate the economy by business investment and job creation.
- New York Times: (October 7, 2001) - “Post-terror nerves aside, what mainly ails the U.S. economy is too much of a good thing. During the bubble years businesses overspent on capital equipment; the resulting overhang of excess capacity is a drag on investment, and hence a drag on the economy as a whole.
In time this overhang will be worked off. Meanwhile, economic policy should encourage other spending to offset the temporary slump in business investment. Low interest rates, which promote spending on housing and other durable goods, are the main answer. But it seems inevitable that there will also be a fiscal stimulus package”
- New York Times: (Dec 28, 2001) - "The good news about the U.S. economy is that it fell into recession, but it didn’t fall off a cliff. Most of the credit probably goes to the dogged optimism of American consumers, but the Fed’s dramatic interest rate cuts helped keep housing strong even as business investment plunged.”
As long as you have a printing press deficits don't matter. For many years now the Fed uses newly printed money to buy up debts & keep them on their balance sheet at zero interest. Any time they want to they can write down those debts shrinking the money supply. They can raise rates, sell debt or raise taxes to kill inflation dead any time they want.
Japan has proven that deficits don't matter.
Dick Cheney said to Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill: "You know, Paul, Reagan proved that deficits don't matter."
Obama & Congress are just leveraging the country to maximize growth by maximizing employment. Until we get to 5% unemployment that starts driving wages higher & increasing the velocity of money, the Fed can print until the cows come home & not cause major inflation like we had under G.W.Bush.
Let's not forget Bernanke's famous testimony that the housing market was fine and there was no bubble. Or Greenspan admission that he was shocked, shocked the corporations in the free market could act the way the did.
When it came to negotiations between the banks and the Federal Reserve during the banking crisis, there was no negotiations. Geithner and Bernanke gave the banks everything they lost on their speculative loans. Not 20%, not 60%, not 80%, 100%. All done in one weekend. And you know who else was part of the deal: Goldman's own Henry Paulson. Sheila Bair was shocked. Krugman was mum. Can you imagine the outcry from Liberals of Romney made such a deal? As it stands, the American public has been made to pay for every bad loan made by Wall Street whether it was under Obama or Bush.
When it comes to Wall Street, there are no enemies in Washington other than Ron Paul and Bernie Sanders. And the Federal Reserve has no problem with printing money for Wall Street as long as they can. There is no one to stop them in Washington. The rest of us just have to suffer higher prices and get lower income as the Federal Reserve devalues the dollar.
As for the stock market, it is signalling that the Federal Reserve may have to stop because it is getting to a tipping point for the economy (recession is quite probable if Europe goes into a recession). But not before Wall Street made trillions under Obama. That is where all the debt went.
If Romney understands velocity of money and how it is created, he is way ahead of Krugman and Obama who believe that strong economies are built by putting the American people trillions of dollars in debt while make a few people on Wall Street whole by bailing them out %100 on their disgraceful investments. I think Obama was clueless and he let Geithner bail out his friends. Now we are all left holding the bag and it is far from over as the Federal Reserve continues to expand its balance sheet at an unprecedented rate. And make no mistake about it, every cent that is printed is coming right out of the hides of the middle class.
Liberals do not want to acknowledge it or even contemplate the possibility, but the seeds of the Tea Party (economic concerns about the way government is being used to transfer wealth to the ultra-rich has validity). If you were involved with decision making for large corporations, then you would know that there is no better a friend to any corporation than government contracts. I cringe at the talking heads on MSNBC as I do at those on Fox News. Once in a great while there is someone on CNBC who acknowledges what is really going on. The best source of information is the Economist (which endorsed Obama) and Sheil Bair's book .. a Republican who really cares about the people. Thumbs up to Bernie Sanders and Ron Paul for trying to do the right thing albeit from different philosophical perspectives.
You make some very interesting and valid comments. My question to you is what evidence do you have that Romney had better solutions for the economy. He talked about creating 12 million jobs but provided no plan. He talked about his tax plan but refused to explain how he would pay for the tax cuts he proposed.
Are you referring to Sheila Bair's book, Bull by the Horns: Fighting to Save Main Street from Wall Street and Wall Street from Itself?
You make some very interesting and valid comments. My question to you is what evidence do you have that Romney had better solutions for the economy. He talked about creating 12 million jobs but provided no plan. He talked about his tax plan but refused to explain how he would pay for the tax cuts he proposed.
Are you referring to Sheila Bair's book, Bull by the Horns: Fighting to Save Main Street from Wall Street and Wall Street from Itself?
There is no evidence that I can point to that Romney would have done better for the economy. His pledge to cut 20% of taxes (mostly for the wealthy) with no way to pay for it would have done enormous harm to the economy. This was one of Romney's primary problems in getting centrists to believe him and vote for him. He had no credibility during the primaries or the campaign. Does he have the smarts and understanding of what needs to be done? Probably yes. Would he actually do anything to help the economy and even if he tried would he have been successful. We will never know.
But the Democrats and Obama are quite cognizant of the fact that they garnered 9 million less votes this election while Romney garnered 2 million less than McCain. No doubt, considering the importance of the economy in this election, these members of the electorate abstained because the hated the policies of both candidates. Should a reasonable fiscally responsible candidate with progressive social views be nominated in 2016 (Bush, Rubio, Clinton) then this type of candidate will be very formidable.
That would really hurt me in investing if I have to pay 39% tax on profits. Don't people with less than $250,000 / year income pay less capital gains tax?
I personally don't see the big huff. Everyone knew it would happen sooner or later. Country needs more cash. It's their patriotic duty to pay taxes.
No matter my tax rate, I'll always look to make more. If that's not true, you're just small minded.
Quote:
Originally Posted by richrf
As the person in charge of operations at Bain, Romney has a very real understanding of how business is truly transacted in this country. It is not complicated, but one does not get this knowledge from text books or talking heads, or newspaper articles. Whether he would use this understanding for the betterment of the 99% of the electorate is what is in question. One can only guess because there is no way to look into his mind and his true intentions.
Romney was a pioneer in private equity. You have to be a real moron to screw up in that industry. He doesn't create jobs or know the first thing about the economy.
Private equity takes very little of their money, lots of investors money, and buys companies. They then over leverage those companies, take the cash they used debt for the company to get, strip away anything they can, then let them go bankrupt. Costs the private equity guys nothing, they make a fortune. If anyone loses money, its investors dumb enough to invest with them (and their returns really haven't been that great). Bear in mind, these are perfectly viable countries before the PE firms get a hold of them. Someone else then buys them out of bankruptcy and makes them solid companies again, or they die.
Romney may harp he helped build staples, but that doesn't atone for ruining dozens of well run companies. People often confuse private equity (actually a play on the name, its usually a lot of debt and little equity) with venture capital. Venture capital is good. Private equity are just vultures.
Quote:
Originally Posted by villageidiot1
I worked for one of the largest consulting firms in the world. I gained a very real understanding of how business is truly transacted in this country. I did not learn how to run or improve an economy. Private equity and leveraged buyouts have never been shown to stimulate an economy.
Exactly. They're more a drag on society then a plus.
Quote:
Originally Posted by richrf
Let's not forget Bernanke's famous testimony that the housing market was fine and there was no bubble. Or Greenspan admission that he was shocked, shocked the corporations in the free market could act the way the did.
Because the economic profession is a laughingstock. Bernanke's experience is all from academics. There's a saying, "Those who can't do, teach."
Economists are allowed to make bad call after bad call and still get attention. Just like at Summers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by richrf
When it comes to Wall Street, there are no enemies in Washington other than Ron Paul and Bernie Sanders. And the Federal Reserve has no problem with printing money for Wall Street as long as they can. There is no one to stop them in Washington. The rest of us just have to suffer higher prices and get lower income as the Federal Reserve devalues the dollar.
Goldman Sachs owns your government. They also own the government of Greece. And the WMF. They have their ex-employees everywhere.
They got banking de-regulated. It's a lot harder to re-regulate it then it is to de-regulate it. They hold all the cards currently.
Actqwully if youlook mai street is doig the same thignhas wall street'really. They are hunkerdown and not investing i equities to nay real volume. Eliminating debt and increasig savings. Its risk off for both.
My family owns a small business in the top bracket and we have owned numerous businesses in the past too. In reality, no small business owner would fire employees simply because of an increase in federal income tax. Likewise, no small business owner will hire employees simply because of a decrease in federal income tax.
Think about it! Would you really want to produce less, lower your customer service, lower your sales, damage your business's reputation over a 5% increase on income over $250,000? You would lose more in sales firing employees than the 5% increase because you won't be able to keep up with demand. Also, if you cut employees, your expenses will decline, meaning now instead of being taxed on $300,000 profit, you will be taxed on $400,000 profit.
DEMAND is what drives a business owner to hire or fire employees, not taxes. I'm speaking from my family's personal experience. If you think about it logically, you will understand too.
There is another argument that can be made that a tax increase would boost the economy because business owners will want more write-offs, so they are more likely to make long term value adding investments. Instead of paying more in taxes, I'd rather update my computer systems and write-off the expense to lower my taxable income, while making my business more efficient.
More taxes on everyone and their will be less demand for most products. Have you considered Obamacare into all of this yet? Have you considered the increase on capital gains tax from 15% to 39% that is not insignificant and it incentives NOT investing in business ventures.
That said both Obama and Romney where/are puppets for the international bankers and those who control the money, the difference between them will be negligible.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
