Why do Libs think economics is subjective????

Question

Politics is subjective because it is a set of political values applied to a set of facts, typically in some discipline. The FACTS on stem cell research are pretty concrete, but you apply different values to those facts and come up with different conclusions. The FACTS on the economy are equally concrete, and if you can find a reason why it's bad that we have rising incomes, rising income mobility, a demographic shift toward the upper end of the wealth spectrum (while the already rich are indeed getting richer, wherever you set the bar to define 'rich' people are moving above that line faster than ever), low unemployment and low inflation, all after a record-long series of interest rate hikes, go ahead and say that those things are "bad" but that that's what's happening cannot be debated.

It's also pretty hard to argue that the tax cuts weren't the genesis of it.

Sky, no, I've read literally thousands of pages of data on the subject, I'm in finance for a living, that's exactly what I've done is gone under the surface - and the Lou Dobbs / John Edwards explanation of these issues is the equivalent of a belief in a flat earth.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1229294/posts
http://www.nytimes.com/specials/downsize/21cox.html
http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/1988/05/art1full.pdf
http://www.frbsf.org/econrsrch/wklyltr/el97-07.html#winners
http://www.dallasfed.org/fed/annual/1999p/ar95.html
http://money.cnn.com/2005/05/25/pf/record_millionaires/index.htm?cnn=yes
http://money.cnn.com/2005/09/28/news/economy/millionaire_survey/index.htm?cnn=yes
http://money.cnn.com/2006/03/28/news/economy/millionaires/?cnn=yes
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Labor/bg1773.cfm

You believe that if some people did better, others must have done worse, and the numbers prove otherwise.

Zero sum game is a fallacy.

Well Sky the economists and the capital markets disagree with you and the numbers refute you.

But you feel free to make it up as you go along.

Answer 1

Libs think that everything is subjective. They think that if you believe it and it makes you feel good, you're fine.

Answer 2

Economics is EXTREMELY subjective.

It is only marginally better at predicting the future of systems than astrology.

Advances in the natural sciences and measurement technologies has now put behind meteorology as a predicting tool.

Furthermore, economics often boils down to a question of better for whom, or which numbers are you looking at. A population can be getting richer without the poor seeing a penny of it. Or the rich could end up controlling 10 percent more of the wealth while the poor only get a one percent increase in the process. Wealth does not necessarily translate into a lessening of inequalities.

In a system where wealth tends to translate into political power, another insidious effect also takes place: Mainly that the rich have an increasing tendency to tilt the system in their favor. "Free market" like "Perfectly Representative democracies" may be an ideal to be achieved, but both these ideas exist only as ideas - no system on earth will ever reproduce them perfectly.

Oh, and deficits matter.
If you eat more calories than you exercise away, you'll get fat. f you cut more trees than you plant, you'll decimate the forest. If you spend more than you earn, you'll eventually go bankrupt. That's just arithmetic. The American dollar is losing weight on the international markets - fast!
And yes, you can argue the tax cuts were the origin of it. A war economy and unprecedented government spending may have a bit to do with it. There's one thing worse than tax and spend; don't tax and spend. That's a recipe for disaster. Some people may be partying now, but you just wait for the hangover.

Answer 3

Actually the war is the cause of the economy. It sort of created a few hundred thousand support jobs for the military and freed up another hundred thousand jobs in the civilian sector. Not to mention that spending on the war is far greater than the money saved by the tax cuts.

So no, just like the first two times the tax cuts didn't work for Bush, they didn't work very well this time either.

And, while the short term outlook may be great, the long term outlook is horrible. The world value of the dollar is dropping like a stone due to US borrowing to pay for its overspending, and the UN has warned that continuing this trend could harm a lot of countries.

Answer 4

I agree with you up until the point 'tax cuts were responsible' for it. Becasue you have to point out what the tax cuts did for future prospects of the economy, the prospects for the value of currency and the prospects for trade.

Taxes are never actually an issue until someone makes them an issue. Taxes are essentially non-money. It's money you wouldn't make anyway becasue if you did make that money... the value of your money would be less. You'd essentially have the same value of money no matter what the taxes are. But, when you cut taxes in a tilted way for the rich, you negate the whole concept.

But what you're saying is true. You can approach anything and everything from an ideology. Whether or not that's a smart thing to do, is up to you.

Answer 5

Of course nobody has said any of those things are bad. Once again words are put into the mouth of the 'liberal' strawman in an attempt to control the discussion. Also, objective reality doesn't jib very well with the poster's conculsions. True enough that many people are not doing badly, but many are not and even moving downward. Savings rates are rock bottom or non-existant for most of the middle class...particularly for the blue collar middle class. The vast number of American wage-earners have more debt than assets....most Americans are working, but they remain a single paycheck away from disaster. True, there are more rich people, but then there are more people as well. Inflation may be 'low', but it's not low for the items that wage-earners require....energy, housing, medical insurance, higher education and transportation. Income may be 'rising', but not in relation to essentials. I don't know where the poster gets his information, I'd like to see where it comes from...but mostly I'd like these guys to stop beating the strawman 'liberals'.....there ain't no such a critter no matter how many charges you bering against them!

Answer 6

As soon as you said low inflation I dismissed your question.

Do you actually shop for groceries, healthcare, energy etc etc.

If you look at most peoples income and adjust for inflation (even the bogus inflation that the government prints) they are still making less then 6 years ago.

You are just quoting government hype about the economy.
If you think an economy based on borrowing the savings of other countries is healthy then more power to you.

By the way why did Harry Truman say he wanted a one arm economist?

Answer 7

It is subjective. If you're rich and getting richer, then it's good. If you're CEO of a company who just moved to China and now get tax breaks, the economy is good. If you were just laid off because your company moved to China and can't find another job (say, you worked at Ford), the economy is bad. If you're me, and love to travel and going to Europe is costing much more than it did 8 years ago because the dollar sucks compared to the euro, then it's bad. If you're a baby, and the government is spending trillions of China's money on a U.S. war, and you're generation is going to have to pay it back, the economy's bad (interest rates will go up because we're competing with our own government to borrow money). If you're concerned that we're importing far more goods from China than we're selling to them, it's bad.

I guess it's also subjective if you're the type you looks at what our actions now will do to our economy in the future... If you're not, well, then I guess everything is great.

Answer 8

Your links provide no support for you question. Why do you keep posting the same links?

Statistics are nice and can easily be manipulated, but proving casualty is something totally different. So yes economics is very subjective because you can rarely if ever prove something. Take a course in statistics and you will find this out, and I don't mean that 6 sigma crap.

Answer 9

I am not trying to attack you but dude, you realize the dollar is a lot weaker than it has been in a very long time right? A strong economy was the US 10 years ago, that was a strong economy. This is different. And without the war, it would all be horrible.

Answer 10

This is you:

"blah blah blah I love Bush blah blah blah I can kiss Bush's butt all day blah blah blah ooh I think I'll use some caps here blah blah I hate liberals blah blah blah"

The fact is, moron, that honest moral people are being kicked out of their houses because of inflation. And that most of the moral honest people are poor. And that because of Bush not getting off his high horse, they have no voice. The same goes for Congress- because of that convenient rubber stamp Bush has, Congress has no voice, be they Democrat driven or Republican driven.

"Low inflation"... that's what you call gas prices tripling? It's what you call produce prices soaring? I'm extremely glad we don't live in Zimbabwe but I certainly feel robbed by this President regardless.

Answer 11

The thing is, we (or our kids) will end up having to pay for those tax cuts eventually. They will also have to pay for the Iraq War eventually, which at 12B a month, isn't going to be cheap. And realistically, if the economy is improving and the rich are getting richer, why isn't the middle class feeling it? I don't feel it.