Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Bloomberg View)   Who's afraid of conservative reform? Answer: Wall Street   (bloombergview.com) divider line 40
    More: Interesting  
•       •       •

1933 clicks; posted to Politics » on 15 Jun 2014 at 2:22 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



40 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2014-06-15 12:24:52 AM  
I found that article... rather level-headed and reasonable.  Am I drunk?
 
2014-06-15 01:26:16 AM  
Obvious tag away at its vacation home in the Caymans?
 
2014-06-15 01:32:46 AM  

Mentat: I found that article... rather level-headed and reasonable.  Am I drunk?


If you're reading Bloomberg at this hour, it's a safe bet you're probably drunk, but not necessarily so drunk as to remove all economic sense. The EITC is a close sibling to Friedman's idea of a negative income tax, so why not? The street's interested in making money, not political gains. If something is believed to be an efficient way of spurring economic growth (whether by diverting money back into consumer cyclicals, or in the Fed keeping the banks afloat for long enough for people to get out from being underwater on their mortgages), the street will be in favor of it. Branding a policy with a political label is about how to sell the policy to Washington, but it has little to do with the policy itself.

/I'm drunk enough to think I was on the business tab and not the politics tab, so take this with a grain of salt.
 
2014-06-15 02:32:24 AM  
When Cantor lost the primary, Boeing stock dropped by more than 3 points.
 
2014-06-15 02:38:38 AM  
Does it matter?
 
2014-06-15 02:40:22 AM  
With the GOP playing chicken with the debt ceiling every year and dangling the country's credit rating off the edge of a cliff, it's no surprise.
 
2014-06-15 02:40:29 AM  
Yes bloomberg, conservatives just need to be more racist to win elections, I agree.

/I'm not being fair, I only skimmed the article.
 
2014-06-15 02:51:09 AM  
Employers (sorry, "Job Creators" blessing be upon them) don't hire people just because they have extra money lying around. If there's no increase in demand what are these hypothetical new hires to do, twiddle their thumbs? Consumer demand drives the economy. Didn't we learn ANYTHING from the Bush tax cuts?


What can require periodic overhaul is political messaging.

Oh, right, the old "We don't need to change our policies, we just need to pitch them better" thing again. *sigh*
 
2014-06-15 02:54:59 AM  
Reform conservatism is good as a model of how the Republican Party could usefully contribute to the nation's welfare in a way that Democrats wouldn't be able to.  The problem is not that its ideas are bad (some are good - e.g. weakening patent protections), but that so few congressional Republicans are likely to adopt them as long as they depend on Wall St. for funding.
 
2014-06-15 02:57:06 AM  

fusillade762: What can require periodic overhaul is political messaging.

Oh, right, the old "We don't need to change our policies, we just need to pitch them better" thing again. *sigh*


That's the opposite of what the author is saying.  He's explicitly stating that the problem with the GOP is an outdated policy agenda.
 
2014-06-15 02:58:37 AM  

Captain Dan: Reform conservatism is good as a model of how the Republican Party could usefully contribute to the nation's welfare in a way that Democrats wouldn't be able to.  The problem is not that its ideas are bad (some are good - e.g. weakening patent protections), but that so few congressional Republicans are likely to adopt them as long as they depend on Wall St. for funding.


Nope. Fails out the gate. "Constitution" references are the tell.
 
2014-06-15 03:03:45 AM  

fusillade762: Employers (sorry, "Job Creators" blessing be upon them) don't hire people just because they have extra money lying around. If there's no increase in demand what are these hypothetical new hires to do, twiddle their thumbs? Consumer demand drives the economy. Didn't we learn ANYTHING from the Bush tax cuts?


What can require periodic overhaul is political messaging.

Oh, right, the old "We don't need to change our policies, we just need to pitch them better" thing again. *sigh*


It's an interesting Catch-22 isn't it?  You need consumer demand to drive producers to expand their operations, which includes purchasing new equipment and hiring new workers (not the same, unless you're a sociopath).  But once you do this, the spending involved indirectly increases consumer demand because the people you've hired and the suppliers you bought from now have more money to spend.

The hard part is triggering the cycle, which a government stimulus package is perfect for.  Sadly, it's unlikely because as the article pointed out the Republicans and especially the Tea-tards won't stand for the additional spending without an offsetting cut somewhere else, which defeats the purpose.  Of course (as also pointed out), they're perfectly happy to cut revenues by slashing taxes, which would theoretically also increase spending by giving people more money to play with, but they overwhelmingly favor people more interested in hoarding more money than in doing anything productive with it.

/I'd also like to not have to worry about a bridge collapsing every time a semi drives over it or the wind gusts
 
2014-06-15 03:09:28 AM  

Captain Dan: fusillade762: What can require periodic overhaul is political messaging.

Oh, right, the old "We don't need to change our policies, we just need to pitch them better" thing again. *sigh*

That's the opposite of what the author is saying.  He's explicitly stating that the problem with the GOP is an outdated policy agenda.


Yeah, but he's missing the fact that Ms. Strassel's insane ramblings WORK and resonate with the retarded base of the GOP.

Also, I could be wrong, but I think the immigration reform is largely a red herring.  Someone posted a poll yesterday (well, Day before, midnight posting) pointing out that most 70+%) of the primary voters didn't actually oppose the policies of immigration reform.  Now even if you assume push polling and voters being stupid enough to hate what they want because it has the word "Obama" stapled onto it that's a pretty big number to make Cantor's former 80% in last election turn into, what, 30% in this election?

But the flip side is, maybe we don't want the GOP to realize what they're doing wrong.
 
2014-06-15 03:10:50 AM  

Arumat: fusillade762: Employers (sorry, "Job Creators" blessing be upon them) don't hire people just because they have extra money lying around. If there's no increase in demand what are these hypothetical new hires to do, twiddle their thumbs? Consumer demand drives the economy. Didn't we learn ANYTHING from the Bush tax cuts?


What can require periodic overhaul is political messaging.

Oh, right, the old "We don't need to change our policies, we just need to pitch them better" thing again. *sigh*

It's an interesting Catch-22 isn't it?  You need consumer demand to drive producers to expand their operations, which includes purchasing new equipment and hiring new workers (not the same, unless you're a sociopath).  But once you do this, the spending involved indirectly increases consumer demand because the people you've hired and the suppliers you bought from now have more money to spend.

The hard part is triggering the cycle, which a government stimulus package is perfect for.  Sadly, it's unlikely because as the article pointed out the Republicans and especially the Tea-tards won't stand for the additional spending without an offsetting cut somewhere else, which defeats the purpose.  Of course (as also pointed out), they're perfectly happy to cut revenues by slashing taxes, which would theoretically also increase spending by giving people more money to play with, but they overwhelmingly favor people more interested in hoarding more money than in doing anything productive with it.

/I'd also like to not have to worry about a bridge collapsing every time a semi drives over it or the wind gusts


And that doesnt even mention the ungodly amounts we spend on the military in comparison to our own citizens.
 
2014-06-15 03:10:55 AM  

Captain Dan: Reform conservatism is good as a model of how the Republican Party could usefully contribute to the nation's welfare in a way that Democrats wouldn't be able to.


I don't see anything new in any of things I've browsed. It's the same old conservative bullshiat. Definitely not what I'd consider "reform".
 
2014-06-15 03:11:52 AM  
Did you know who else despised political parties?
 
2014-06-15 03:13:20 AM  

TheBigJerk: Captain Dan: fusillade762: What can require periodic overhaul is political messaging.

Oh, right, the old "We don't need to change our policies, we just need to pitch them better" thing again. *sigh*

That's the opposite of what the author is saying.  He's explicitly stating that the problem with the GOP is an outdated policy agenda.

Yeah, but he's missing the fact that Ms. Strassel's insane ramblings WORK and resonate with the retarded base of the GOP.

Also, I could be wrong, but I think the immigration reform is largely a red herring.  Someone posted a poll yesterday (well, Day before, midnight posting) pointing out that most 70+%) of the primary voters didn't actually oppose the policies of immigration reform.  Now even if you assume push polling and voters being stupid enough to hate what they want because it has the word "Obama" stapled onto it that's a pretty big number to make Cantor's former 80% in last election turn into, what, 30% in this election?

But the flip side is, maybe we don't want the GOP to realize what they're doing wrong.


nooooooooope, let the circular firing squad continue until a proper modern, intelligent, and capable conservative party emerges from the smoldering ashes.
/takes off the acid goggles
all the old guard conservatives are farking over it, the frankenstein has broke from the cage.
 
2014-06-15 03:18:49 AM  

Arumat: But once you do this, the spending involved indirectly increases consumer demand because the people you've hired and the suppliers you bought from now have more money to spend.


This is the basis of the myth, though.

The only possible way for this "cycle" you posit to sustain itself and not ultimately cannibalize itself is if the Job Creator™ manages to break perfectly even or even lose out in the cycle so that there is money going into the economy at a better rate than it leaves it.

I mean, he can still turn a profit, but he has to be creating more wealth than he actually gains in profits or eventually all his workers are in debt to the company store.  And any businessman who was good enough at the game to HAVE a Job Creator™ business is better at extracting wealth than creating it.  It's how he got so rich in the first place.

The fundamental lie of Supply-side economics is the assumption that after you give a rich man enough money he'll suffer some kind of brain reconfiguration that causes him to spend more than he takes in.
 
2014-06-15 03:33:30 AM  

Captain Dan: fusillade762: What can require periodic overhaul is political messaging.

Oh, right, the old "We don't need to change our policies, we just need to pitch them better" thing again. *sigh*

That's the opposite of what the author is saying.  He's explicitly stating that the problem with the GOP is an outdated policy agenda.


That might not be what the Bloomberg author is saying, but it IS what the WSJ lady was saying.
 
2014-06-15 03:39:00 AM  

TheBigJerk: Arumat: But once you do this, the spending involved indirectly increases consumer demand because the people you've hired and the suppliers you bought from now have more money to spend.

This is the basis of the myth, though.

The only possible way for this "cycle" you posit to sustain itself and not ultimately cannibalize itself is if the Job Creator™ manages to break perfectly even or even lose out in the cycle so that there is money going into the economy at a better rate than it leaves it.

I mean, he can still turn a profit, but he has to be creating more wealth than he actually gains in profits or eventually all his workers are in debt to the company store.  And any businessman who was good enough at the game to HAVE a Job Creator™ business is better at extracting wealth than creating it.  It's how he got so rich in the first place.

The fundamental lie of Supply-side economics is the assumption that after you give a rich man enough money he'll suffer some kind of brain reconfiguration that causes him to spend more than he takes in.


Can't argue against that.  The fundamental flaw in just about any cycle like this is the human component.  No sane economist truly believes that infinite or endless growth is possible.  You just have to hope that the whole heap hangs together well enough that Cycle A can prop Cycle B up long enough for Cycle C's gains to feed back into A.
 
2014-06-15 03:44:08 AM  

fusillade762: That might not be what the Bloomberg author is saying, but it IS what the WSJ lady was saying.


Yes.  Ms. Strassel, and the WSJ in general, are antithetical to reform conservatism.  They're the ones benefiting most from the current iteration of conservatism.  Any reform is bound to hurt them.

Ponnuru, and the other authors loosely associated under the term "reform conservatives," are trying to re-shape conservatism & mold it towards an agenda that is less subservient to Wall St. and more concerned about improving life for middle-class Americans.  Even if that proves difficult/impossible, it is a laudable goal.

Some of their ideas are genuinely good.  For example, weakening patent protections, loosening certain licensing restrictions, and imposing additional regulations on the largest banks.  Laying off income tax cuts and focusing on the taxes that middle-class people actually pay.

These are goals that conservatives could hypothetically embrace, and that would benefit most Americans.
 
2014-06-15 03:47:19 AM  
The correct answer,  Subby, is of course: EVERYONE NOT BATSHIAT CRAZY
 
2014-06-15 03:47:27 AM  

Captain Dan: These are goals that conservatives could hypothetically embrace, and that would benefit most Americans.


But they never will, herein lies the problem with today's conservative parties, both republican and democrat.
 
2014-06-15 03:52:00 AM  

Fista-Phobia: Did you know who else despised political parties?


George Washington?

"[The political parties] serve to organize faction, to give it an artificial and extraordinary force; to put, in the place of the delegated will of the nation, the will of a party, often a small but artful and enterprising minority of the community"
 
2014-06-15 03:55:20 AM  

Bugerz: Captain Dan: These are goals that conservatives could hypothetically embrace, and that would benefit most Americans.

But they never will, herein lies the problem with today's conservative parties, both republican and democrat.


Well then, I guess we'd better give up on ever trying to improve things, and let Wall Street run the government as they see fit.  Reforming the status quo is too hard!

The American people are smarter than you give them credit for.  They'll eventually come around to a good idea... at their own speed.
 
2014-06-15 04:05:25 AM  

Markoff_Cheney: TheBigJerk: Captain Dan: fusillade762: What can require periodic overhaul is political messaging.

Oh, right, the old "We don't need to change our policies, we just need to pitch them better" thing again. *sigh*

That's the opposite of what the author is saying.  He's explicitly stating that the problem with the GOP is an outdated policy agenda.

Yeah, but he's missing the fact that Ms. Strassel's insane ramblings WORK and resonate with the retarded base of the GOP.

Also, I could be wrong, but I think the immigration reform is largely a red herring.  Someone posted a poll yesterday (well, Day before, midnight posting) pointing out that most 70+%) of the primary voters didn't actually oppose the policies of immigration reform.  Now even if you assume push polling and voters being stupid enough to hate what they want because it has the word "Obama" stapled onto it that's a pretty big number to make Cantor's former 80% in last election turn into, what, 30% in this election?

But the flip side is, maybe we don't want the GOP to realize what they're doing wrong.

nooooooooope, let the circular firing squad continue until a proper modern, intelligent, and capable conservative party emerges from the smoldering ashes.
/takes off the acid goggles
all the old guard conservatives are farking over it, the frankenstein has broke from the cage.


I've been hearing this for the last 2 years, but so far all this Republican Infighting hasn't brought the downfall of the GOP that everyone has been squeeing over. We see a few Old Guard conservatives go down, but we see just as many Old Guards retaining their seats by way of going just as extreme as the Tea Party.

"Oh oh but if the Tea Party gets in there and the voters vote, then Dems will get in" well not really; look at 2012 - more votes were cast for Dems, but due to Gerrymandering, they stay in.

"But they're spending money in primary fights." Yeah, and with the SCOTUS saying all money is free speech, and billionaires opening their wallets to shove it down every Republican whore's gullet, that doesn't seem to make a dent.

The end result is that a few conservative districts now have a Tea Party candidate running against a Dem, in a non-Presidential election year, which will result in more Tea Partiers in Congress.

This isn't the wonderful gift horse that everyone seems to fap to. What's the glorious end-game people cheer for here? Maybe in 2016 the Tea Party is taken out because more Dems vote in an election year? That's a lot of ifs. And in the interim the country goes to hell.

The Tea Party isn't going to destroy the GOP for the simple fact that the GOP have safe districts, so all it does is make the elected Republicans crazier. Sure, they'll never win the Presidency with all this crazy trains, but they don't have to, they can just continue to lock up the States and run them into the ground, and continue to lock up the Congress. Eventually that lockup is going to implode our economy when there's enough Tea Baggers to default on debt and refuse to pay our bills.
 
2014-06-15 04:06:29 AM  

Captain Dan: Bugerz: Captain Dan: These are goals that conservatives could hypothetically embrace, and that would benefit most Americans.

But they never will, herein lies the problem with today's conservative parties, both republican and democrat.

Well then, I guess we'd better give up on ever trying to improve things, and let Wall Street run the government as they see fit.  Reforming the status quo is too hard!

The American people are smarter than you give them credit for.  They'll eventually come around to a good idea... at their own speed.


Oh, they will eventually. The problem I see, though, is that it will have to get much worse before it gets better. So vote hardline republican to speed it along.
 
2014-06-15 04:14:59 AM  

Captain Dan: fusillade762: That might not be what the Bloomberg author is saying, but it IS what the WSJ lady was saying.

Yes.  Ms. Strassel, and the WSJ in general, are antithetical to reform conservatism.  They're the ones benefiting most from the current iteration of conservatism.  Any reform is bound to hurt them.

Ponnuru, and the other authors loosely associated under the term "reform conservatives," are trying to re-shape conservatism & mold it towards an agenda that is less subservient to Wall St. and more concerned about improving life for middle-class Americans.  Even if that proves difficult/impossible, it is a laudable goal.

Some of their ideas are genuinely good.  For example, weakening patent protections, loosening certain licensing restrictions, and imposing additional regulations on the largest banks.  Laying off income tax cuts and focusing on the taxes that middle-class people actually pay.

These are goals that conservatives could hypothetically embrace, and that would benefit most Americans.


Wow. For once I actually find myself agreeing with you. Maybe there is hope after all...
 
2014-06-15 04:56:27 AM  
FTA: But what "really resonated" with Virginia Republican voters, she claims, was a post-election interview in which Brat endorsed cutting the top income-tax rate to 25 percent.

A post election interview was what really won Brat his primary?

Dammit I've told Obama not to leave the keys in that darn time machine of his. Thanks Obama!
 
2014-06-15 05:02:05 AM  
Markoff_Cheney:   nooooooooope, let the circular firing squad continue until a proper modern, intelligent, and capable conservative party emerges from the smoldering ashes.

Why would we need two of those?
 
2014-06-15 05:09:45 AM  

Captain Dan: The American people are smarter than you give them credit for.


The answer is no. You receive no credit.
 
2014-06-15 08:59:33 AM  
Who's afraid of conservative reform? Answer: Wall Street The Orthodox?
 
2014-06-15 09:27:15 AM  

ClipJoint: Fista-Phobia: Did you know who else despised political parties?

George Washington?

"[The political parties] serve to organize faction, to give it an artificial and extraordinary force; to put, in the place of the delegated will of the nation, the will of a party, often a small but artful and enterprising minority of the community"


And he was incredibly naive.  Our first-past-the-post system of voting ensured that parties were going to emerge.
 
2014-06-15 09:51:48 AM  

Twilight Farkle: If something is believed to be an efficient way of spurring economic growth (whether by diverting money back into consumer cyclicals, or in the Fed keeping the banks afloat for long enough for people to get out from being underwater on their mortgages), the street will be in favor of it.


The problem with Wall Street is that their perception of what is "an efficient way of spurring economic growth" is so short-sighted as to be barely looking over their own noses.  In other words, even if a policy would help millions of Americans, if it doesn't help them specifically, then it isn't "an efficient way of spurring economic growth", even if without the policy they'd backslide into yet another recession.
 
2014-06-15 10:29:40 AM  

Fista-Phobia: Did you know who else despised political parties?


Thomas Jefferson.  He's the reason we didn't make reasonable plans for them in founding our Government.
 
2014-06-15 10:37:32 AM  

Arumat: Can't argue against that. The fundamental flaw in just about any cycle like this is the human component. No sane economist truly believes that infinite or endless growth is possible. You just have to hope that the whole heap hangs together well enough that Cycle A can prop Cycle B up long enough for Cycle C's gains to feed back into A.


That's where taxes come in. Heavy income, capital gains, and especially estate taxes take money from the capital class and pool it in the government's funds so the cycle repeats.

Unfortunately, is has been publicly decided that taxes make White, English-speaking Baby Jesustm cry.
 
2014-06-15 10:49:30 AM  

Twilight Farkle: Mentat: I found that article... rather level-headed and reasonable.  Am I drunk?

If you're reading Bloomberg at this hour, it's a safe bet you're probably drunk, but not necessarily so drunk as to remove all economic sense. The EITC is a close sibling to Friedman's idea of a negative income tax, so why not? The street's interested in making money, not political gains. If something is believed to be an efficient way of spurring economic growth (whether by diverting money back into consumer cyclicals, or in the Fed keeping the banks afloat for long enough for people to get out from being underwater on their mortgages), the street will be in favor of it. Branding a policy with a political label is about how to sell the policy to Washington, but it has little to do with the policy itself.

/I'm drunk enough to think I was on the business tab and not the politics tab, so take this with a grain of salt.


Expanding the EITC would never pass today's Congress. I think it was part of Dave Camp's tax reform proposal that basically got laughed off the floor by Boehner, Cantor, et al.
 
2014-06-15 10:59:17 AM  

Snapper Carr: With the GOP playing chicken with the debt ceiling every year and dangling the country's credit rating off the edge of a cliff, it's no surprise.


the GOP has cost wall street billions of dollars so far. if the tea party does finally take over the party, look for wall st. to bail for the dems.
 
2014-06-15 11:27:24 AM  

UNC_Samurai: ClipJoint: Fista-Phobia: Did you know who else despised political parties?

George Washington?

"[The political parties] serve to organize faction, to give it an artificial and extraordinary force; to put, in the place of the delegated will of the nation, the will of a party, often a small but artful and enterprising minority of the community"

And he was incredibly naive.  Our first-past-the-post system of voting ensured that parties were going to emerge.


Not naive at all, just incredibly dishonest. He was as much a partisan politician as anyone. He'd talk about the evils of political parties, but in terms of his actual policy positions he was a dyed-in-the-wool Federalist and couldn't stand Jefferson and the other Democratic-Republicans at all. Washington's position was, very simply, both sides are bad (so vote Federalist).
 
2014-06-16 10:06:09 AM  
Obama and Hillary are perfectly manageable Corpos.  It should scare Wall Street to let the Republican wackos screw things up again.
 
Displayed 40 of 40 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report