26 Jan 09
Originally posted by no1marauderThe first one has to do with the auto firms which I wasn't considering. I realize that many people wouldn't support bailouts for them and their collapse would not lead to a catastrophe economy-wise. I was thinking more along the lines of the big mortgage companies and wall street firms.
Poll wording affects the results (naturally) but it's fair to say that most Americans don't support the idea of using public money to bailout large private corporations. Most don't believe that it would be "good for the economy".
The sites you list show 53% and 55% against - hardly 'most', only a small majority.
26 Jan 09
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadThe poll results were as follows:
The first one has to do with the auto firms which I wasn't considering. I realize that many people wouldn't support bailouts for them and their collapse would not lead to a catastrophe economy-wise. I was thinking more along the lines of the big mortgage companies and wall street firms.
The sites you list show 53% and 55% against - hardly 'most', only a small majority.
Americans are opposed to the use of taxpayer dollars to rescue ailing private financial firms by 55% to 31% with 14% not sure. The public also rejects – by an even wider margin of 64% to 25% – bailing out troubled automakers.
http://www.latimes.com/media/acrobat/2008-09/42527811.pdf
Those don't look like "small majorities" to me. If you insist on nitpicking I suppose I could say "large majorities of those that had an opinion". Or alternatively "fewer than one-third of voters supported the bailout".
26 Jan 09
Originally posted by SwissGambitI stand corrected. I was of the belief that 'most' implied a substantial majority.
Main Entry:
most
Function:
adjective
1 : greatest in quantity, extent, or degree
2 : the majority of [most people]
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/most
The question now is whether 3-5% is statistically significant enough for one to say "The tax payers do not support the governments move to bail out some companies." or as in the initial post I asked about "without the consent of the taxpayer."
26 Jan 09
Originally posted by twhiteheadDoes a 24% plurality seem "statistically significant" to you?
I stand corrected. I was of the belief that 'most' implied a substantial majority.
The question now is whether 3-5% is statistically significant enough for one to say "The tax payers do not support the governments move to bail out some companies." or as in the initial post I asked about "without the consent of the taxpayer."
26 Jan 09
Originally posted by divegeesterNo, it's hysterical nonsense.
Was there an alternative to the bank bailouts that didn't worsen the ecconomic situation? I.e if the banks and big corporations refered to in this thread were left to stumble or fail, would it be fair to say that western society could have been in danger of social and ecconomc anarchy?
27 Jan 09
Originally posted by no1marauderMy mistake again. I did not read the articles carefully enough and assumed that there were only yeas and nays.
Does a 24% plurality seem "statistically significant" to you?
So do you think that the Obama administration is more likely to follow the will of the people or are they too in the pocket of big business?
How much of big business do you think supports the bailout? Surely some companies going bust can actually be good for certain others. For example as I understand Toyota has plants in the US so if the US automakers fail then the workers could get jobs at Toyota as it would be able to expand.
27 Jan 09
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesWhy not get your economic theory from reading economists rather than a second-rate novelist, third-rate philosopher and crank? You might as well lend credence to Ezra Pound's railings on usury.
Several.
In any case, you really have to sublimate your big sexual crush on the bluestocking from St Petersburg. "For a woman qua woman, the essence of femininity is hero-worship—the desire to look up to man" (Ayn Rand). She would have known how to please you ... " ... the sex in Rand’s novels is extraordinarily violent and fetishistic. In The Fountainhead, the first coupling of the heroes, heralded by whips and rock drills and horseback riding and cracks in marble, is ‘an act of scorn ... not as love, but as defilement’—in other words, a rape... In Atlas Shrugged, erotic tension is cleverly increased by having one heroine bound into a plot with lots of spectacularly cruel and handsome men." (Jenny Turner). Was she writing just for you?
27 Jan 09
Originally posted by Bosse de NageBecause there is a perception that economists were in charge of the economy and they got it horribly wrong - so there is a tendency to look else where. I agree though that the solution is to ask other economists.
Why not get your economic theory from reading economists rather than a second-rate novelist, third-rate philosopher and crank? You might as well lend credence to Ezra Pound's railings on usury.
27 Jan 09
Originally posted by twhiteheadEconomists in charge of the economy? Don't make me laugh 😠
Because there is a perception that economists were in charge of the economy and they got it horribly wrong - so there is a tendency to look else where. I agree though that the solution is to ask other economists.
27 Jan 09
Originally posted by Bosse de NageI did say 'perception'.
Economists in charge of the economy? Don't make me laugh 😠
What I do find is that it is extremely difficult to find out who would be a reliable source of economic advice. Do economists agree on any general principles? If so where do they publish them?
I noticed in Zambia that every moans and groans about the economy and how badly the government is handling it, but nobody is really standing up and saying what the right course of action should be. I think the first step towards fixing the problem is getting various ideas published (in newspapers etc) so that people can discuss them and possibly then pressure the government to do something about it.
27 Jan 09
2 edits
Originally posted by twhiteheadAcademic journals, I guess. The degree of politicization in economics is now much lower than it was some decades ago. There is obviously still a lot of disagreement, as economics is a young science and there's still much to learn, but if you read most of the media or hear most of the politicians you'd feel nothing has been done for 50 years and we're still stuck in the Monetarists vs. Keynesian debates.
. Do economists agree on any general principles? If so where do they publish them?
The problem is that many economists in politics and media are those that are outdated or don't have the capacity to understand the modern form of economic modelling and the differences it implies. (There are, of course, notable exceptions such as Krugman, Bernanke, etc...)
Another problem that perpetuates this is that people want simple answers and quick fixes. A serious economist will then usually be politically trumped by a mantra-toting zealot and the sound-byte of a simple solution will always find more readers than a detailed analysis. This has led to a certain rift between research and political commentary.
If you want a decent website where leading economists try to translate research-based policy analysis into traditional opinion articles, try this one:
http://www.voxeu.org/
Regarding Zambia, it is now recognized that there are no universally valid solutions (especially when it comes to developing countries) so I don't know if you'll find something there to help you make sense of your country's situation.
Edit - Proof of quality:
http://www.voxeu.org/index.php?q=search/node/ayn+rand 😀
27 Jan 09
Originally posted by PalynkaThank you, I'll have a look.
If you want a decent website where leading economists try to translate research-based policy analysis into traditional opinion articles, try this one:
http://www.voxeu.org/
Regarding Zambia, it is now recognized that there are no universally valid solutions (especially when it comes to developing countries) so I don't know if you'll find something there to help you make sense of your country's situation.
I went home over Christmas and found it really frustrating having the media full of the most ridiculous statements about economics and the main focus of the government being the price of the staple food (mealie meal) and no discussion at all going on about what the best economic policies might be for the country.
A journalist reported on the news that the price of mealie meal has come down (due to government subsidies) and it must come down further. Yet not justification for such a claim was given. What I wanted at the time was to see an analysis by an economist on the economic impacts of subsidizing mealie meal.
28 Jan 09
Originally posted by Bosse de NageBoss de Nutsack, did you really just compare the good Doctor to Ezra Pound? I would have figured you as a fan of Ezra's treasonous, anti-semite ravings and political views. Afterall, you do share Ezra's modernistic leanings. You are the very self styled personification of man struggle to exert his willful individuality in the face of society's grinding pressure.
Why not get your economic theory from reading economists rather than a second-rate novelist, third-rate philosopher and crank? You might as well lend credence to Ezra Pound's railings on usury.
In any case, you really have to sublimate your big sexual crush on the bluestocking from St Petersburg. "For a woman qua woman, the essence of femininity i ...[text shortened]... ots of spectacularly cruel and handsome men." (Jenny Turner). Was she writing just for you?
Have you ever read the slime trail you exude as you skulk through the forums? You seem to be under the grand delusion that your a fountain of truth and enlightenment when, in reality, you're every bit of the second-rate hack, third-rate philosopher ass crank that you warn The Doctor about. I'm curious, no, really, I want to know, do you ever get tired of your own pretentious BS?
It is my, ever so humble, opinion, that you are unworthy to carry Doctor Scribbles rank, sweat stained jockstrap through the hallowed halls of the RHP forums, much less, have the audacity to criticize him.