Can Political Tactics Clean Up?

[RandomFreak]

There's one thing that the results of the election have me hopeful for. Let's set aside the democrat vs. republican issue for a minute and just look at the tactics of the campaign. For the first time in quite a while the cleaner campaign won. While it is true Obama took out some negative adds against McCain very few were outright attacks and they made up a much smaller percentage of his ads and campaign than McCain's (which seemed to be primarily negative). Having watched smear campaigns succeed again and again it's refreshing for me to see that on the highest level it didn't work this time. I would like to hope that maybe it will lead to cleaner campaigns in general since it proved that going negative harder than the other guy isn't the automatic win it used to be. I'd love to see a trend towards campaigns focused on the issues more than personal failings or past associations.

Or maybe I'm just being overly optimistic.

[adrshepard]

Obama's campaign only appears clean because he didn't go after John McCain as much. Technically, his ENTIRE campaign was an attack on George Bush, and it followed the same formula as any attack ad: distort, imply, and omit. Obama astutely took advantage of Bush's low approval ratings by embacing the buzzword "change", which can mean anything to anyone, and so appeals to every discontented voter.

This wasn't an issues-dominated election by any means. The only specifics Obama talked about were those that would appeal to the self-centered majority of voters: Tax the rich, tax corporations, provide handouts and job subsidies to everyone else. At no time did he ever explain how this would help the country as a whole (i.e. what possible benefit can come from increasing taxes on investment returns? If Obama were really so concerned about a balanced budget, why is increasing entitlements, by far the most expensive and irreversible component of the US budget, one of his greatest priorities?).

The only other details he mentioned involved foreign policy, but few voters decide based on these issues anyway.

At 11/7/08 03:20 PM, RandomFreak wrote: I'd love to see a trend towards campaigns focused on the issues more than personal failings or past associations.

McCain didn't have much of a choice. Obama promised the 8.00/hour "middle-class" laborer the stars, while McCain promised judgment and prudence. You can't ask the average voter to look past his own immediate circumstances (how will my 500 dollar tax cut affect the economy?) and look at the big picture. It's too time-consuming and difficult. The only alternative is to make the average joe hate and distrust Obama, and negative ads and character attacks are the best way to do it.

[Drakim]

At 11/7/08 03:48 PM, adrshepard wrote: Obama's campaign only appears clean because he didn't go after John McCain as much. Technically, his ENTIRE campaign was an attack on George Bush, and it followed the same formula as any attack ad: distort, imply, and omit. Obama astutely took advantage of Bush's low approval ratings by embacing the buzzword "change", which can mean anything to anyone, and so appeals to every discontented voter.

But that was his entire platform. His running ideal was "I'm going to do things differently than the last president". Besides, it's not like he attacked Bush personally, did he? He criticized the way Bush had done things. Isn't that exactly what we want?

[adrshepard]

At 11/7/08 05:04 PM, Drakim wrote:

But that was his entire platform. His running ideal was "I'm going to do things differently than the last president". Besides, it's not like he attacked Bush personally, did he? He criticized the way Bush had done things. Isn't that exactly what we want?

He criticized the way Bush had done things, but was precise in only two aspects: Iraq and taxes. On the first issue, he's changed his position multiple times to the extent that it almost mirrors Bush's and McCains.
His tax policy is not based on any coherent national goal since it basically redistributes income away from the wealthy and large businesses towards everyone else. Spending habits may partially validate such a policy, but increasing capital gains taxes can only impede investment and growth. His campaign completely omitted how Bush's plan reduced taxes for everyone, tacitly implying that only the rich profited when in fact everyone did. Per capita income rose about 30% from 2001 to 2007, according to figures from the Bureau of Economic Analysis (I had to deduce these rates myself, I'm having trouble finding stats on real income per capita over the past 8 years.)
He can hardly attack Bush on social security or medicare, either, since one of Bush's major accomplishments was enacting a huge prescription drug plan.
Bush even tried some of the protectionism Obama advocates. He earned the appreciation of steel workers in his first term by raising tariffs on imported steel, but he had to drop them after Europe threatened retaliation. Plus, there are already subsidies towards strategic sectors like food production that keep jobs but are economically inefficient. Bush did nothing to stop those. Obama's going to expand these subsidies in the form of tax cuts to industries that aren't strategically important.

So what's so horrible that we need Obama to change it? Is it possible blind hatred of Bush clouded the reasoning of the Obama voters? I think so.

[The-Wolfe]

Until the meek inherit the earth, power hungry people will remain, and as long as power hungry people remain, they will use underhanded methods of achieving that power. They will use underhanded methods for the simple reason that they are EFFECTIVE. There will always be people willing to do these things, and as irritating as it may be, in many cases these are the only people with enough motivation to get things done. As long as we manage to keep a system where the power that people manuver for is reliant on the goodwill of all the rest of the people, than things will not get worse, but unless there is an actual change in human nature itself, no, political methods will not clean up.

[Musician]

At 11/7/08 07:43 PM, adrshepard wrote: So what's so horrible that we need Obama to change it? Is it possible blind hatred of Bush clouded the reasoning of the Obama voters? I think so.

Well I wouldn't say that. Sure some people are undoubtedly influenced by blind partisanship on both sides, but you can't honestly believe that Bush's popularity plummeted as extravagantly as it did simply because of partisanship, can you?

Anyways, It's interesting that you would choose a statistic like income per capita to support your argument, since it only takes total income and divides it by the US population. The major problem with this is that you're trying to support the claim that middle class benefited from Bush's tax cuts, and your statistics include the income data from CEO's with multimillion dollar salaries which could easily distort a income per capita figure.

A much more valid statistic would be median household income, which under bush increased by about 9% (or $4,175) [1], which is decent but doesn't really compare to what the top 1% saw, which was an increase of about 40% (or $321,132) [2]. Plus you also have to factor in that since Bush entered office in 2001, poverty rates have increased from 11.3% to 12.5%, unemployment has increased from 3.9% to 6.5% [3], and the income inequality in the US has risen from 0.357 (as measured by the Gini Coefficient) to 0.381 [4].

So did Bush cut taxes for everyone? Yes. Did his tax plans significantly benefit anyone other than the upper class? Not significantly. Especially not when you adjust for inflation. I would say that most middle class workers have a right to be upset with the way that Bush's economic plans were structured, seeing as they basically got the shaft.

Besides all that, you're missing the larger picture. Obama wasn't attacking McCain or Bush as people. Obama wasn't comparing McCain to terrorists, or doing other silly things like that. Obama was attacking their policies. You can argue that Obama was skewing the facts, but you certainly can't argue that his tactics were comparable to the smear campaign McCain ran.

1. DeNavas, Carmen, Bern Proctor, Jessica Smith, (2007) "Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2007", US Census Bureau, Page 5, <http://www.census.gov/prod/2008pubs/p60 -235.pdf>

2. Stone, Chad, Chye-Ching Huang, (2007) "Income Concentration at Highest Level Since 1928, New Analysis Shows", Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, <http://www.cbpp.org/3-27-08tax2.htm>

3. (2008), "Civilian Unemployment Rate", U.S. Department of Labor: Bureau of Labor Statistics, <http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/da ta/UNRATE.txt>

4. (2006) "Growing Unequal?", Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, <http://www.researchrecap.com/index.php/
2008/10/21/income-inequality-in-us-incre ased-since-2000/>

[adrshepard]

Several points:
The poverty level as defined for US citizens is a joke. They are by no means impoverished, since it is possible for people to own or rent homes and apartments, as well as own cars, yet still be considered impoverished. Poor, yes, but poverty brings to mind starving families living in trash heaps (like in the Christian Children's fund commercials), and people who somehow live on less than a few dollars a day. Besides, I have never seen anyone try to make the connection between Bush's policies and the poverty level. They only cite it. Are you any different?

Citing current unemployment levels as an argument against Bush is just sloppy. We're in the midst of a financial crisis and possibly a recession, so naturally unemployment is going to be high.
I've also been thinking about all the talk about how the rich grew more wealthy than everyone else. To me, this is not so much evidence of an engineered policy to serve the rich but of an effective financial system. If the subprime mortgage crisis has demonstrated anything, it's that large sums of money can be used to generate huge returns. A rich person with an extra 50,000 dollars to spare has a lot more earning potential than some laborer with 500 dollars, and its not suprising that their comparative investments would yield vastly different returns, even as a percentage of their incomes. But even then, no one is getting "the shaft." Everyone gained, its just that people with class-warrior mentalities felt they weren't getting "enough" and demanded some vague amount more.

I also don't think I judged the two campaigns, I only tried to identify them for what they were. Obama's was an attack against Bush, but it almost exclusively took the form of populism and demagoguery rather than policy analysis.

[Musician]

Whether or not those under the poverty line in the US (>$12,000 a year) are actually impoverished is not necessarily the point. The increase in poverty is an indicator that there is less wealth in the lower class, which in turn shows that the lower class has lost wealth under Bush.

Regarding unemployment statistics. You would have a point if there was a sharp increase in unemployment near the end of Bush's term when the crisis first began having effects on the economy. But this has been a steady trend since his inauguration in 2001, well before we entered the economic crisis we're experiencing today.

The difference in gains between the middle and upper class is actually very surprising given the promises made by supply side economics. The whole idea is that wealth is supposed to make it's way down to the other classes through investments, which the facts show was clearly not the case from 2000 to 2007. Instead, while upper class households were making gains in the hundreds of thousands, middle class houses were making losses. Don't understand? If you adjust the statistics from the 2007 Census Bureau to compensate for inflation, you'll find that the average household actually lost around $300 in annual income under Bush. If your adjust those numbers further to exclude anyone who isn't of working age, you'll find that the average household lost around $2000 in annual income under bush. From this perspective we can see clearly that the rich were the only ones who really benefited from Bush's tax structure.

Finally, I've never disagreed that Obama's campaign was an attack on Bush's policies, but he still didn't cross the lines that the McCain campaign did. He stuck, for the most part, to attacking the policies not the people. Furthermore, I think your accusations of populism are founded, and true to an extent (he wouldn't have talked so often about Bush if it didn't appeal to people), but if you payed close attention to the debates you'd notice that he did make specific references as to why he detested the Bush policies. In fact, many of the statistics I've presented in this thread have been presented by Obama in his debates with McCain at one point or another.

[Drakim]

At 11/7/08 07:43 PM, adrshepard wrote:

At 11/7/08 05:04 PM, Drakim wrote:

But that was his entire platform. His running ideal was "I'm going to do things differently than the last president". Besides, it's not like he attacked Bush personally, did he? He criticized the way Bush had done things. Isn't that exactly what we want?

He criticized the way Bush had done things, but was precise in only two aspects: Iraq and taxes. On the first issue, he's changed his position multiple times to the extent that it almost mirrors Bush's and McCains.

Bah, Sorry, but you are very obvious, I won't bother replying to your points. First you criticize Obama for going after Bush, which is the same as going after McCain because voters makes that connection, and I reply saying that I don't agree with your reasoning. Then you reply to that by saying that Obama is actually the same as Bush and McCain, so his arguments to being different is wrong. You aren't interested in either of these points, you are just focused on attacking Obama.

[adrshepard]

At 11/8/08 01:51 AM, Musician wrote: Whether or not those under the poverty line in the US (>$12,000 a year) are actually impoverished is not necessarily the point. The increase in poverty is an indicator that there is less wealth in the lower class, which in turn shows that the lower class has lost wealth under Bush.

It is true that from 2000 to 2007, there is about a 1.2% increase in the poverty rate. But you still have not attempted to explain the relationship between Bush and this result. http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/h istpov/perindex.html (table 9)

At 11/8/08 01:51 AM, Musician wrote: Regarding unemployment statistics. You would have a point if there was a sharp increase in unemployment near the end of Bush's term when the crisis first began having effects on the economy. But this has been a steady trend since his inauguration in 2001, well before we entered the economic crisis we're experiencing today.

Not according to the economic data. ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/l f/aat1.txt The unemployment rate in 2007 was 4.6%, and over the course of Bush's term the average appears to be around 5%, the natural rate of unemployment.

At 11/8/08 01:51 AM, Musician wrote: The difference in gains between the middle and upper class is actually very surprising given the promises made by supply side economics.... If you adjust the statistics from the 2007 Census Bureau to compensate for inflation, you'll find that the average household actually lost around $300 in annual income under Bush.

http://www.epi.org/content.cfm/webfeatur es_econindicators_income_20080826
http://z.about.com/d/uspolitics/1/0/2/G/
001_real_median_income.png
These two documents suggest to me that there is a real cyclical effect at work here. The graph in the second link shows about a ten-year gap between recessions and improvements in median income past the older level, and 2007 figures from the first link show that graph can be continued to over 50,000. Now, that link also mentions the 300 dollar decline, but that isn't suprising considering the other increases occur over greater time scales.
In 2010, will there be as much of an increase in the real median income as in other periods? Probably not, but that would more than likely be caused by the aggravating influence of the mortgage crisis upon the normal business cycle. In that case, the figures aren't so easily explained by Bush's policies.

At 11/8/08 01:51 AM, Musician wrote: In fact, many of the statistics I've presented in this thread have been presented by Obama in his debates with McCain at one point or another.

Lol, what better reason to be skeptical of them!

At 11/7/08 05:04 PM, Drakim wrote:

Bah, Sorry, but you are very obvious, I won't bother replying to your points. First you criticize Obama for going after Bush, which is the same as going after McCain because voters makes that connection, and I reply saying that I don't agree with your reasoning. Then you reply to that by saying that Obama is actually the same as Bush and McCain, so his arguments to being different is wrong. You aren't interested in either of these points, you are just focused on attacking Obama.

I don't see what you are getting at. Obama capitalized on resentment against Bush, but held back the specifics of his "change" plan for all but a few issues (at least publicly. There are of course more specifics on his website, but his campaign naturally counts on the fact that the few people who took the time to read them would not spend more time investigating them). Obama is like Bush and McCain only in how far he has tempered his Iraq policy. It used to be "withdraw immediately" where it is now "withdraw slowly and responsibly given conditions on the ground." It's more or less the same plan as McCain and Bush with a slightly different emphasis. Troop rotations and tour limits act as big restraints regarding Iraq policy, but at least we know McCain would probably try to keep up the fight as long as possible, whereas Obama just wants the US out.

[Musician]

At 11/8/08 12:23 PM, adrshepard wrote: It is true that from 2000 to 2007, there is about a 1.2% increase in the poverty rate. But you still have not attempted to explain the relationship between Bush and this result. http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/h istpov/perindex.html (table 9)

Think of it this way. Lets say there are two men. One holds $4. the other holds $1. Lets assume for the sake of argument that the richer man represents the upper class, and the poorer man represents the lower class. Now a third man enters the room. This man represents the government. He decides that he wants to give $12 to the richer man. The poorer man gets upset about this, and claims that he'll beat up the government if the government gives all $12 to the richer man. The government thus decides to give $10 to the richer man and $2 to the poorer man. So now the richer man has $14, and the poorer man has $3.

Now at face value it would appear that both of the men gained wealth, but this is misleading because at first the wealth distribution was like this:

Rich Man: $4: 80% of the wealth
Poor Man: $1: 20% of the wealth

and now, the wealth distribution is like this:

Rich Man: $14: 82% of the wealth
Poor Man: $3: 18% of the wealth

When you adjust for inflation, the poor man actually lost money. Now this is a very simple example and it leaves out quite a few other factors, but it illustrates an important point. The only ones who really benefited from Bush's tax cuts were the rich, because ultimately, bush's policies put a larger percentage of the wealth into the hands of the rich then they did into the hands of the poor.

Not according to the economic data. ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/l f/aat1.txt The unemployment rate in 2007 was 4.6%, and over the course of Bush's term the average appears to be around 5%, the natural rate of unemployment.

The problem here is that you're reading unemployment statistics from mid 2007, while I'm reading statistics from late 2008. It is true that the unemployment rate was 4.6 in June of 2007, but it had already risen to 5.0 by December 2007. By October 2008, it had risen another 1.5% to 6.5% [1]. Also, while a 5% unemployment rate might be considered natural under most modern presidencies, a 2.6% increase in unemployment is not "natural", and is certainly not beneficial.

These two documents suggest to me that there is a real cyclical effect at work here. The graph in the second link shows about a ten-year gap between recessions and improvements in median income past the older level, and 2007 figures from the first link show that graph can be continued to over 50,000. Now, that link also mentions the 300 dollar decline, but that isn't suprising considering the other increases occur over greater time scales.

Your logic is faulty. Surprising or not, the $300 loss disproves your theory that everyone gained under Bush's policies. Now, I think I've been far too generous to your side of the argument thus far. Unless you have any legitimate evidence that the middle class actually made gains under Bush, I'm going to assume that you don't have any support for your argument.

Lol, what better reason to be skeptical of them!

Maybe, skepticism isn't necessarily a bad thing. But unless you can actually find justified flaws in the statistics, you'll just have to accept them. I think Drakim nailed it on the head in his last post. Thus far your commentary in this thread has reflected more of a vendetta against Obama than actual disapproval in his campaign tactics.

1. (2008), "Civilian Unemployment Rate", U.S. Department of Labor: Bureau of Labor Statistics, <http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/da ta/UNRATE.txt>

[Conspiracy3]

If you look at the history of US elections they were much less clean in the past than they are now. I have no problem with negative attack ads, but what i do have a problem with are the ads that just flat out lie to us. For instance there was one elections back about thirty years ago in which one candidate alleged the other candidate shot and killed his mother even though his mother was still alive and well.

[adrshepard]

At 11/8/08 05:04 PM, Musician wrote: Now at face value it would appear that both of the men gained wealth, but this is misleading because at first the wealth distribution was like this:

I don't know why you focus the distribution when you have a case with the median income. Over time, we are talking about an ever-expanding pie. Whether or not each share is equivalent is irrelevant so long as the piece is bigger.

The problem here is that you're reading unemployment statistics from mid 2007, while I'm reading statistics from late 2008. It is true that the unemployment rate was 4.6 in June of 2007, but it had already risen to 5.0 by December 2007. By October 2008, it had risen another 1.5% to 6.5% [1]. Also, while a 5% unemployment rate might be considered natural under most modern presidencies, a 2.6% increase in unemployment is not "natural", and is certainly not beneficial.

I don't think you know what you are saying. Unemployment always goes up above the natural rate when a recession is near, and there isn't anything presidents or even the government itself can do to stop it in a free market. It isn't valid evidence to use against Bush, unless you have some complex economic model to prove that if Bush hadn't done x, then unemployment would be lower.

Your logic is faulty. Surprising or not, the $300 loss disproves your theory that everyone gained under Bush's policies. Now, I think I've been far too generous to your side of the argument thus far. Unless you have any legitimate evidence that the middle class actually made gains under Bush, I'm going to assume that you don't have any support for your argument.

This argument has changed with every post. I thought we were talking about Bush's tax policy as a redistributive tool, which could only work if the game were "zero-sum." True, the 300$ figure says that the median income hasn't risen under Bush, but that's not quite what we were talking about. Taxes were cut for everyone, and the fact that the rich paid fewer of a percentage doesn't explain why there was a loss in median income.
To sum up:
Bush's tax policy resulted in real income gains on a relative basis for everyone.
Not everyone gained more real income in an absolute basis over the span of Bush's administration.

[Musician]

At 11/8/08 09:14 PM, adrshepard wrote: I don't know why you focus the distribution when you have a case with the median income. Over time, we are talking about an ever-expanding pie. Whether or not each share is equivalent is irrelevant so long as the piece is bigger.

I explained the effect of Bush's tax policies, because you specifically asked me to connect the fall in median income to Bush's policies. Also, no, we are not talking about an ever expanding pie. Money has no natural value, all it does is represent value. To expand that even further, money does not simply represent a set amount of value, it represents a percentage of the total wealth. How much your money is worth is directly correlated to how much money is in circulation.

I don't think you know what you are saying. Unemployment always goes up above the natural rate when a recession is near, and there isn't anything presidents or even the government itself can do to stop it in a free market. It isn't valid evidence to use against Bush, unless you have some complex economic model to prove that if Bush hadn't done x, then unemployment would be lower.

The problem with your analysis is that unemployment was on the rise well before the recession. Unemployment also peaked at 6.1% in 2003, well before the effects of the recession were being felt. While I agree that in some respects the government has little control over the economy, there is nothing natural that can explain the sharp increases in unemployment that occurred not only under Bush, but under Bush Sr. and Reagan as well. The natural conclusion is that there's something wrong with the economic policy that these presidents used.

This argument has changed with every post. I thought we were talking about Bush's tax policy as a redistributive tool, which could only work if the game were "zero-sum." True, the 300$ figure says that the median income hasn't risen under Bush, but that's not quite what we were talking about. Taxes were cut for everyone, and the fact that the rich paid fewer of a percentage doesn't explain why there was a loss in median income.
To sum up:
Bush's tax policy resulted in real income gains on a relative basis for everyone.
Not everyone gained more real income in an absolute basis over the span of Bush's administration.

There actually wasn't a loss in median income before it was adjusted for inflation. I explained this earlier in the thread. Under Bush the median income rose by about 4k. The problem was that bush gave so much to the rich, that inflation caused devaluation of what the median household gained. So while taxes were cut for everyone, only the upper quintile gained any real wealth under Bush.

[adrshepard]

At 11/8/08 10:02 PM, Musician wrote: I explained the effect of Bush's tax policies, because you specifically asked me to connect the fall in median income to Bush's policies. Also, no, we are not talking about an ever expanding pie. Money has no natural value, all it does is represent value. To expand that even further, money does not simply represent a set amount of value, it represents a percentage of the total wealth. How much your money is worth is directly correlated to how much money is in circulation.

What you're describing doesn't make any sense. Any growth in real income for the nation as a whole always means an increase in real GDP (a bigger pie). And yes, inflation does affect income and wealth through purchasing power, but inflation is essential to economic growth. When I've used the word "natural" before, I'm talking about a steady-state economy. At a growth rate of about 5%, there is no pressure for inflation to accelerate, instead allowing it to rise at a constant rate of around 3%. Inflation by itself does decrease wealth and purchasing power, but in times of growth it is always offset by increases in income.

At 11/8/08 10:02 PM, Musician wrote: The problem with your analysis is that unemployment was on the rise well before the recession. Unemployment also peaked at 6.1% in 2003, well before the effects of the recession were being felt. While I agree that in some respects the government has little control over the economy, there is nothing natural that can explain the sharp increases in unemployment that occurred not only under Bush, but under Bush Sr. and Reagan as well. The natural conclusion is that there's something wrong with the economic policy that these presidents used.

That's not the natural conclusion at all. There's a direct correlation between recessions and the unemployment rate, and recent increases are a possible indicator of a recession. This is all part of the business cycle, as I've said, and to simply look at a 30 year timeline, mark off presidential terms, and then jump to the conclusion that all the republicans did something wrong is simply foolish. The US economy is incredibly complex, and your analysis depends upon recessions and unemployment rates just barely falling around term dates.
http://seekingalpha.com/article/94300-un employment-rates-recession-periods-and-s tock-market-prices

At 11/8/08 10:02 PM, Musician wrote: There actually wasn't a loss in median income before it was adjusted for inflation. I explained this earlier in the thread. Under Bush the median income rose by about 4k. The problem was that bush gave so much to the rich, that inflation caused devaluation of what the median household gained. So while taxes were cut for everyone, only the upper quintile gained any real wealth under Bush.

Economics is a great area of study, since even the best economists are surprised by economic developments, and the interconnectedness of markets and influences means that any one change could conceivably have any number of effects. What you're suggesting is technically possible but is wildly implausible and doesn't mesh with spending statistics. In your scenario (I'm guessing because, if you know what you are talking about, its the only reasonable series of events that comes to mind that would result in what you said) the rich would spend so much money on certain goods that their prices would rise dramatically enough to raise the cost of living for the rest of the population, but yet not so high as to justify investment in production to gain a competitive edge in pricing (the cost of expanding production outweighs predicted profits by decreasing prices and cost per unit). That doesn't sound like a very probable outcome to me, and a simple look at the
quintile expenditures is enough to show that the first four quintiles spend substantially more than the fifth, and of that the top quintile doesn't spend even closely the same amount on any homogenous good in the economy so as to raise prices for everyone.
I have never heard of the "crowding out" effect being applied to anything outside of investment markets, but it is a novel idea to look for it in consumption spending.

[Musician]

At 11/8/08 10:57 PM, adrshepard wrote: What you're describing doesn't make any sense. Any growth in real income for the nation as a whole always means an increase in real GDP (a bigger pie). And yes, inflation does affect income and wealth through purchasing power, but inflation is essential to economic growth. When I've used the word "natural" before, I'm talking about a steady-state economy. At a growth rate of about 5%, there is no pressure for inflation to accelerate, instead allowing it to rise at a constant rate of around 3%. Inflation by itself does decrease wealth and purchasing power, but in times of growth it is always offset by increases in income.

An increase in GDP does not necessarily indicate an increase in total wealth. There is only a set amount of wealth in the world, and an increase in wealth would require a decrease in wealth elsewhere. Instead, virtually every country in the world experiences positive GDP growth annually. GDP growth (in the US today) for the most part represents the perfunctory spiral/wedge inflation that naturally occurs from year to year.

That's not the natural conclusion at all. There's a direct correlation between recessions and the unemployment rate, and recent increases are a possible indicator of a recession. This is all part of the business cycle, as I've said, and to simply look at a 30 year timeline, mark off presidential terms, and then jump to the conclusion that all the republicans did something wrong is simply foolish. The US economy is incredibly complex, and your analysis depends upon recessions and unemployment rates just barely falling around term dates.
http://seekingalpha.com/article/94300-un employment-rates-recession-periods-and-s tock-market-prices

Like I have said before, the first increase in unemployment preceded the effects of the recession by 4 years. If you look closely at the chart that you yourself linked to, you'll find that unemployment increases as an indicator of a recession usually precede the recession by less than a year. You cannot attribute the increase in unemployment peaking multiple times during Bush's presidency purely to the recession.

Economics is a great area of study, since even the best economists are surprised by economic developments, and the interconnectedness of markets and influences means that any one change could conceivably have any number of effects. What you're suggesting is technically possible but is wildly implausible and doesn't mesh with spending statistics. In your scenario (I'm guessing because, if you know what you are talking about, its the only reasonable series of events that comes to mind that would result in what you said) the rich would spend so much money on certain goods that their prices would rise dramatically enough to raise the cost of living for the rest of the population, but yet not so high as to justify investment in production to gain a competitive edge in pricing (the cost of expanding production outweighs predicted profits by decreasing prices and cost per unit). That doesn't sound like a very probable outcome to me, and a simple look at the
quintile expenditures is enough to show that the first four quintiles spend substantially more than the fifth, and of that the top quintile doesn't spend even closely the same amount on any homogenous good in the economy so as to raise prices for everyone.
I have never heard of the "crowding out" effect being applied to anything outside of investment markets, but it is a novel idea to look for it in consumption spending.

Alas, I was mistaken. It is true that spending from the top quintile did not cause any dramatic form of inflation. It was a rash assumption on my part, and I apologize. However, the fact remains that under Bush median household income saw drops while the wealthy saw gains. Bush may have cut taxes for everyone, but his promises of economic prosperity through trickle down economics fell short. Perhaps saying that supply side theory is engineered to benefit the rich is a rash assumption.. perhaps. However, the ultimate reality is that supply side theory has been empirically proven wrong twice in the last century. I would say that Obama supporters are completely justified in decrying these policies that have proven so disastrous for our country.

[Imperator]

At 11/7/08 05:04 PM, Drakim wrote:
But that was his entire platform. His running ideal was "I'm going to do things differently than the last president". Besides, it's not like he attacked Bush personally, did he? He criticized the way Bush had done things. Isn't that exactly what we want?

Name one candidate who hasn't run on the platform of doing things "bigger, better, and badder" than their predecessors.

My problem with Obama was that his platform of "Change" put him in line with every politician EVER.

Of course, my problem with McCain was that before he ran he sounded smart, and after he sounded smart. During the campaign he might as well have worn a sign saying "Will drop pants for vote"......

He pandered just barely short of doing tricks off the NJ turnpike.

Obama's campaign was basically an attack on Bush, and the media seemed to do OK to clean up the rest.

What I find kinda funny is Fox went after Palin pretty hard after all this stuff about her being absolutely clueless has come out of the McCain camp.

[adrshepard]

At 11/9/08 12:33 AM, Musician wrote: An increase in GDP does not necessarily indicate an increase in total wealth. There is only a set amount of wealth in the world, and an increase in wealth would require a decrease in wealth elsewhere. Instead, virtually every country in the world experiences positive GDP growth annually. GDP growth (in the US today) for the most part represents the perfunctory spiral/wedge inflation that naturally occurs from year to year.

That's not true by any means. Innovation and technological growth increase output absolutely, without the loss of anything. If a new process allows a pound of coal to produce more electricity with less waste, that innovation represents an increase in output, which in time translates into wealth because of energy's applications.
On a more basic level, trade between two countries with two-good production possibilities always means an increase in wealth. Whichever one has the relative advantage in producing good A will do so, while the other produces good B. These countries then exchange the goods at a more efficient rate than what they could produce themselves, and as a result consumption is higher in both countries.

At 11/9/08 12:33 AM, Musician wrote: Like I have said before, the first increase in unemployment preceded the effects of the recession by 4 years. If you look closely at the chart that you yourself linked to, you'll find that unemployment increases as an indicator of a recession usually precede the recession by less than a year. You cannot attribute the increase in unemployment peaking multiple times during Bush's presidency purely to the recession.

I don't know if you are considering the after-affects of the 2001 recession in your statement. If you look at the graph we are talking about, you'll notice that unemployment peaked at the end of each recession, except for those in 2001 and 1991. I've been searching "post-recession jobless recovery" on the internet and have come across a bunch of stuff that attempts to explain it. Some say increases in productivity allowed for the same output with fewer workers, others talk about the relative mildness of the 2001 and 1991 recessions leaving less room for dramatic improvement, still more mention spending and confidence levels. I don't know which one is more accurate, and even though some articles say that Bush's tax cuts were not intended primarily for jobs creation, I think it's clear that there was more going on that simply what Bush may or may not have done.

At 11/9/08 12:33 AM, Musician wrote: Alas, I was mistaken. It is true that spending from the top quintile did not cause any dramatic form of inflation. It was a rash assumption on my part, and I apologize. However, the fact remains that under Bush median household income saw drops while the wealthy saw gains. Bush may have cut taxes for everyone, but his promises of economic prosperity through trickle down economics fell short... I would say that Obama supporters are completely justified in decrying these policies that have proven so disastrous for our country.

You're going into the old correlation mode again. You've explained and withdrawn one causal argument, but you're replacing it with the fact that median real income fell and that somehow Bush was responsible. Unless you can talk about the means, there is no real way that you can know Obama's policies will be any better (for median income they will, obviously, through his tax plan, but will there be equivalent economic growth for the nation as a whole, or do the fates of those in the higher fourth and fifth quintiles simply not matter?).