The First 100 days

Discussion in 'West Mall' started by theiioftx, Nov 10, 2016.

  1. Seattle Husker

    Seattle Husker 10,000+ Posts

    Do we care about debt or only as it pertains to D administrations?

    What those numbers show is that the D's have been pretty good at leaving the R's with a decent economic situation. Alas, the R's haven't been so kind. Then again, this post also over-exaggerates the POTUS economic impact.
     
  2. Mr. Deez

    Mr. Deez Beer Prophet

    Republicans only care about debt as it pertains to Democratic administrations. Democrats only care about debt as it pertains to Republican administrations. I think that's true for two reasons. First, obviously it's politically self-serving to be selective about complaining about the debt. Second, most politicians think the deficit spending is worthwhile when it's on priorities they care about, so they care less about it when their people are making the decisions.

    That's a bit over-simplistic. Obama handed Trump a mediocre economy. On the upside, unemployment was low (albeit with a low labor participation rate) as was inflation), but growth was pretty slow.

    Bush obviously handed Obama a very bad economy. Growth was falling, and unemployment was rising. Furthermore, I think special attention has to be given when the poor economy isn't just a slump in the business cycle but is indicative of a fundamental economic problem like a mortgage crisis. I may not agree with Obama's economic policies in dealing with the problems, but the problems were there and very real.

    And though the political conventional wisdom hailed Clinton as an economic mastermind who handed his successor a great economy that he screwed up, that's a phony narrative. We weren't in a recession, but growth was falling rapidly, and unemployment was rising somewhat before Bush took office. A slowdown was coming, and it wasn't Bush's fault.

    And the reverse was true of Bush 41. The political conventional wisdom is that he handed Clinton a terrible economy (often moronically called "the worse economy in 50 years") and that Clinton fixed it. Nonsense. In fact, when Clinton took office, we had had 5 straight quarters of economic growth (including 4.3 percent in the quarter just before Clinton took office). Unemployment was still over 7 percent, but it was moving downward. In November 1992, the political class and Democrats were talking about the economy as though it was a year earlier.

    Reagan handed Bush a pretty strong economy - high growth, low unemployment, low inflation. However, even that had the S&L crisis looming.

    Carter handed Reagan a dumpster fire. Growth was virtually nonexistent. Unemployment was high. Furthermore, inflation was high - a problem that no subsequent president has had to deal with to a significant degree. Furthermore, like Obama, the economy Reagan inherited had fundamental structural problems. The manufacturing sector was going through a major decline. Furthermore, inflation was high - one of the hardest economic problems to fix, because it's hard to fix it without aggravating other problems. After Reagan dealt with inflation, it hasn't been a significant problem since. It's one of the few economic problems we've actually fixed for the long term.

    Definitely true. Most of the economic recessions and recoveries arise from economic forces that are beyond the government's control and even more so beyond the President's control. Capitol Hill and the Fed have a lot more direct control than the President does. However, it's politically simpler to put it all on the President, so people do that.
     
  3. Joe Fan

    Joe Fan 10,000+ Posts

    DNC fundraising trailing that of RNC:

    Oct.
    RNC: $9.2M
    DNC: $3.9M

    2017 Total
    RNC: $113M
    DNC: $55M
     
  4. Joe Fan

    Joe Fan 10,000+ Posts

    Another new high, Dow 23,605

    SP500 sailed past 2,600

    [​IMG]
     
  5. Seattle Husker

    Seattle Husker 10,000+ Posts

    Not the Onion:

    Leading Trump Census pick causes alarm
    The 2020 count might be put in the hands of an inexperienced professor who wrote that 'Competitive Elections are Bad for America.'

     
  6. Seattle Husker

    Seattle Husker 10,000+ Posts

    Trump's FCC is about to sellout the internet to big corp as they reverse the rules on Net Neutrality.

    Here's a preview of a world without Net Neutrality via Mexico. Welcome to paying your service provider for better access to specific applications.
    [​IMG]
     
  7. Mr. Deez

    Mr. Deez Beer Prophet

    98 percent of the public has no idea what net neutrality is. In fact, that's a stupid term to describe it. It really doesn't give the reader any idea of what it is. If this price model actually shows up, people will freak out, and politicians will have to answer for it.
     
  8. Monahorns

    Monahorns 5,000+ Posts

    Net Neutrality is a farce. It is a ploy to get the government as much control over the internet as they already have over broadcast television and radio.

    The answer to high cost and poor service is market competition and freedom not government oversight.
     
    • Like Like x 3
  9. Mr. Deez

    Mr. Deez Beer Prophet

    Nobody believes that's going to happen. What they think is going to happen is that ISPs will use their ability to price discriminate according to application to leverage customers into buying other services. For example, they'll start charging more to customers who use Netflix, Amazon Prime, and other video content so they can leverage them into buying a cable subscription. If you use Magic Jack or some other form of VOIP, they'll charge you more to leverage you into buying their phone service.
     
  10. iatrogenic

    iatrogenic 2,500+ Posts

    The allocation of resources according to price is the definition of capitalism, which is the greatest economic system ever devised.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  11. Mr. Deez

    Mr. Deez Beer Prophet

    I don't disagree at all. I'm just saying that this particular move is likely to make things more expensive for many consumers. They're going to get less for more, and appeals to free markets and capitalism isn't likely to placate them, especially when it's coming from an industry that has no problem with exploiting government power when it's convenient to do so.
     
  12. Seattle Husker

    Seattle Husker 10,000+ Posts

    That's her idealistic but doesn't work in a world decreasing ISP. You're mobile providers have licenses to specific spectrum. There are only 4 national carriers. Sure, there are other brands but only 4 carriers. Boost...owned by Sprint. MetroPCS and Wal-Mart Family Mobile...t-mobile. Cricket...AT&T. Only 1 company can own that copper into your house.

    Simply put, there is limited competitors. When these rules pass you'll immediately see the ISPs pair up with content suppliers to offer fast lanes for specific content. The relationships are already being established. T-mobile began offering "Netflix for life", AT&T offers Hulu or HBO, Verizon will offer their own content. None of this will be good for consumers but where it will really have an impact is the next Netflix who can't pay to play the providers.
     
  13. Joe Fan

    Joe Fan 10,000+ Posts

    Murkowski now agreeing to the killoff of Obamacare’s individual mandate
    Which improves chances of Senate getting tax bill through
     
  14. Monahorns

    Monahorns 5,000+ Posts

    So, like I said, the problems caused by ISPs charging differently for different services will open up the opportunity for competition. Like most of these situations in the short term there will be problems for consumers but if the barriers to entry are kept low then market competition benefit consumers long term.

    That's the answer to me, reduce the barriers to entry, prime the market for competition. Getting the government involved will do what it always does: 1) protect monopolies or big corporations by holding the barriers to entry high and 2) increase costs proportional to their involvement.
     
  15. Monahorns

    Monahorns 5,000+ Posts

    Here is an article highlighting this phenomenon.

    The other part not mentioned in the article though is that price controls can actually lead to the opposite of what they attempt. Holding prices down artificially, can reduce the incentive to produce even at a profit. A company that won't make any more money on a product and doesn't have to worry about losing the business to competitive will hold production levels constant. For things like smartphones or internet streaming, the demand will most likely increase. This situation: level supply and growing demand, leads to increasing prices or shortages (which leads to black markets with higher prices). That is why people starve in socialist countries when the government implements price controls on food FOR THE PEOPLE!

    Net neutrality will most likely lead to less internet and internet services (at least compared to what we would have without it) which will eventually make us all poorer materially. But Senator so and so said he would go after those greedy internet providers FOR THE PEOPLE!

    https://mises.org/wire/government-didnt-save-us-apples-iphone-monopoly
     
  16. Seattle Husker

    Seattle Husker 10,000+ Posts

    My point is that the barriers to entry near impossible. Net Neutrality was put in place because the barriers are to entry are impossible to overcome. Broadband spectrum is a finite resource that needs to be licensed by the federal government. The Cable companies were handed a defacto monopoly for residential ISP when local municipalities allowed them sole usage of that copper wire into your home. DSL is the modern equivalent of someone using AOL for email.

    So, if competition is limited, you need controls like NN to prohibit the players from unfairly dividing up the market.

    Like Citizens United' negative impact on politics, the lack of Net Neutrality will have disastrous consequences for everyone but the ISPs.
     
  17. Seattle Husker

    Seattle Husker 10,000+ Posts

    Net Neutrality doesn't regulate pricing, to my knowledge. What it does is forbid ISP's to giving preferential treatment to content providers. Comcast can't shake down Netflix by throttling them because their customers are watching a lot of House of Cards while giving increased speeds to Universal content that they own. T-Mobile can't make a deal with MSFT to deliver Bing searches faster than Google.

    Yes, I recognize the the ISPs claim they need this increased revenue to update their backbone but that's BS, pure and simple. For example, Comcast is losing cable revenue and needs to replace it with other revenue to keep their shareholders happy. They aren't losing money on their internet services in fact if you look at their balance sheet they are making LOTS of money in this space. The same can be said for any major ISP.
     
  18. Monahorns

    Monahorns 5,000+ Posts

    SH, briefly I will say that I disagree with some of your assumptions and some of your logic. For an example, you believe the barrier to entry is too high and then the reason you state is based on a government decision. That means that you think it will be the government that will end the problem that the government started in the first place. That logic is problematic to me. So is the assumption that the barriers to entry are too high today to allow new competitors. Either way the solution is the same I proposed earlier, protecting private property rights and market competition. I think any true solution to internet industry problems will be only be accomplished through those means.

    Let me give you an example. Price controls don't always mean price restrictions as you are correct to say. However, even passing a regulation that all access must be charged the same price could cause consumers problems. This is because not all internet usage is the same, it is not all equal in value to providers, it is not all equal in value to users. If you force a provider to charge the same to everyone, they then face a dilemma. Do I price the service based on high value types of usage? Or do I price the service based on low value types of usage? Either one of those choices hurts consumers by either increasing costs for the average lower value type of user or decreasing the number of services and new innovation available over time that a consumer may want to enjoy.

    Instead of a government official making things "fair" FOR THE PEOPLE. They should let us all decide in the most democratic means known in existence, a free market.
     
  19. Seattle Husker

    Seattle Husker 10,000+ Posts

    The barrier is unavoidable. Broadband spectrum is limited. If not for government licensing then the airwaves would literally be clogged like freeways without any laws. There'd be so much interference that not just cell service wouldn't work, but radar systems, digital TV and Radio and many more things. For that reason, the government must regulate who is licensed to use this spectrum which creates a barrier to a new entrant. This spectrum costs the big wireless carriers $billions$ and rarely is available in the government auctions.

    For the hard wired cable companies, they've been given a monopoly for one reason, they are entrusted to maintain the network of copper to your house like your local power utility. If they don't have that monopoly then their incentive to maintain the network is removed. Aside from those very rare urban areas that have fiber optic cable installed, telephone cable can't carry the requisite data load.

    This is why any one of us maybe has 3-4 viable options for ISPs capable of carrying digital video over the internet.

    This idea of competition solving all the problems works when there are not barriers. In this case, the barriers is billions of dollars and extreme limits to capacity (i.e. broadband spectrum) that has to be regulated. I'm not here to say the government is the solution to everything but in this case it has to be because you are imagining a competitive marketplace that doesn't exist and can't exist.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  20. Joe Fan

    Joe Fan 10,000+ Posts

     
    • Like Like x 2
  21. Joe Fan

    Joe Fan 10,000+ Posts

    I've been blabbing about this issue for 20 years+

     
  22. Monahorns

    Monahorns 5,000+ Posts

    SH, the fact that there are 3-4 ISP options for an internet consumer is sufficient competition. As long as they are competing and not colluding that is enough. Now, Google is coming into the market and driving prices down and speeds up. Other companies could do the same if prices get too high. The current situation shows that the barrier isn't too high on it's own. Plus, as you say wireless companies could provide the same. You're claim that the government HAS to regulate isn't backed up by reality. Companies enter capital intensive industries regularly. There is no difference with this one.

    And even if you are right that broadcast options must be restricted so that the airwaves don't get "clogged", let's at least find what the max throughput is. You are arguing that the government has to solve a problem that hasn't even happened yet. It is the same issue with net neutrality. No ISP is charging different rates to different users yet. FCC control is a solution seeking a problem. Today, that is not happening so why the need for the solution? Plus, the FCC will regulate like telephone and radio for which today they further restrict entrance into the market.
     
  23. Seattle Husker

    Seattle Husker 10,000+ Posts

    I live in a major metro area thus have 3-4 ISP options. If I lived in Western Nebraska still it would be 0-2. Google will never get past the major metro areas and they don't appear to be doing this for a profit motive but rather R&D. With all that said, there still isn't real competition. New wireless carriers can't get into this space absent buying Direct TV that his holding a lot of licenses. There simply aren't more frequencies to sell. For cable internet providers, they stand alone with monopolies into your house. Already they are partnering up. Comcast and Verizon are partnered. XFinity Mobile is simply Verizon. Verizon gets access to Comcast's NBC Universal content. In other words, even with Net Neutrality in place these providers were already preparing for a non-NN world.

    Max throughput doesn't matter when wireless companies have a license for that frequency and/or cable internet providers have sole ownership over that wire. That's not changing any time soon which is why Net Neutrality was necessary. It's the yin to the yang of limited competition to protect consumers and content providers.

    I read an analogy that is appropriate. Right now, you have roads that can get you to any number of stores. ISP's own the onramp to the roads. Absent Net Neutrality, you're allowing the ISP's to stop you at the entrance and charge a consumer depending on their destination. Going to REI...its $XXX, Academy its $XX, Nordstrom its $XXXXX.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  24. Joe Fan

    Joe Fan 10,000+ Posts

  25. Joe Fan

    Joe Fan 10,000+ Posts

    It appears the media is at a loss to explain what changed

    [​IMG]
     
  26. Seattle Husker

    Seattle Husker 10,000+ Posts

    2009 further in the rearview mirror?
     
  27. Garmel

    Garmel 5,000+ Posts

    2009 and Obama are long gone.
     
  28. Seattle Husker

    Seattle Husker 10,000+ Posts

    OK. Trump's twitter blathering is the sole reason for Consumer confidence improving then?
     
  29. Garmel

    Garmel 5,000+ Posts

    You do know that Trump has done a few things to help the economy, right(mostly deregulation)? Most people see the economy improving with their own eyes and that's why consumer confidence is higher. What's funny is if the economy was in free fall right now you would be blaming Trump. You want your cake and eat it too.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  30. Seattle Husker

    Seattle Husker 10,000+ Posts

    Right...deregulation is the sole reason for optimism by Joe Schmo consumer? Is that what you are stating?

    I said this before every POTUS took office and will say it again. The first year of the POTUS first term is set by the preceding POTUS. The budget is established by the prior admin/congress. By any measure the economy was heading upwards before Trump was inaugurated just as it was collapsing before Obama was inaugurated. That's not a partisan statement but rather fact. Bush was handed a Tech bubble that was bursting and an economy that was further hampered by 9/11.

    Wiping off some EPA regulations that were scheduled to go into effect had a negligible impact on the economy, at best.
     

Share This Page