How or Why did you become a Democrat?

[Balta1701]

I'm not saying they did things right...but when recessions hit, governments are supposed to flood money.

In general, yes, that's exactly what they should do, because a recession typically occurs because the Federal Reserve pushed things too far in the "Slowdown" direction and the government can spend money more quickly than the Federal Reserve can restart things, plus the government can cushion the blow for people through unemployment benefits and healthcare coverage in this country. And yes, we ought to be doing more of all of that now.

 

That recession is just a little different though, because the inflation rate had gotten so out of control that the fed felt the need to crank up the interest rates beyond the point of "accidentally going to far" and forced a large recession to get that inflation rate under control.

 

The government was going to expand spending to cover unemployment benefits and medicaid, and that's still a good thing, but it was a force pushing against what the Fed was doing in that case, so at the very least there's a complicated cost/benefit calculation involved in offering benefits but fighting inflation.

[Y2HH]

In general, yes, that's exactly what they should do, because a recession typically occurs because the Federal Reserve pushed things too far in the "Slowdown" direction and the government can spend money more quickly than the Federal Reserve can restart things, plus the government can cushion the blow for people through unemployment benefits and healthcare coverage in this country. And yes, we ought to be doing more of all of that now.

 

That recession is just a little different though, because the inflation rate had gotten so out of control that the fed felt the need to crank up the interest rates beyond the point of "accidentally going to far" and forced a large recession to get that inflation rate under control.

 

The government was going to expand spending to cover unemployment benefits and medicaid, and that's still a good thing, but it was a force pushing against what the Fed was doing in that case, so at the very least there's a complicated cost/benefit calculation involved in offering benefits but fighting inflation.

 

It was a most unique situation back in the 80's, as compared to now...but taken by themselves, every situation is unique and cannot effectively be compared.

 

I recall Greenspan doing something similar in the late 90's to curb the rate of growth due to the .com explosion. He was raising interest rates at a .25 or .50 clip every few months...the tipping point came fast because the bust occurred seemingly overnight, meanwhile this guy had interest rates at 7%+ because he didn't understand the .com boom/bust. At least, IMO, he didn't.

[Balta1701]

It was a most unique situation back in the 80's, as compared to now...but taken by themselves, every situation is unique and cannot effectively be compared.

 

I recall Greenspan doing something similar in the late 90's to curb the rate of growth due to the .com explosion. He was raising interest rates at a .25 or .50 clip every few months...the tipping point came fast because the bust occurred seemingly overnight, meanwhile this guy had interest rates at 7%+ because he didn't understand the .com boom/bust. At least, IMO, he didn't.

Yes, there was a rise in interest rates prior to the bursting of the 2000 and 2007 bubbles...but it was a much smaller comparative rise, and the "Slowdown" in those cases was vastly accelerated by the bursting of bubbles that the Fed had allowed to inflate/directly inflated. If he had raised interest rates more slowly...do you really think that it would have led to a soft landing on the bubble? I can't think of an example when that happens. The bubble was going to become a major inflation push in both cases once it existed, effectively forcing the fed to act, and deflating a financial bubble without puncturing it seems about as difficult as...deflating an actual bubble without puncturing it.

 

The real thing to do is actually have a regulatory system that prevents those speculative bubbles. If you allow them to exist, then this boom and bust is the result. That's exactly how things operated in the days before the Great Depression produced meaningful financial regulation, and we've now seen repeatedly, globally, that Central Banks can be rapidly rendered powerless by the scale of these bursting bubbles.

 

 

ANd on the other point;

What we can do is come up with models that allow for the comparison of a variety of economic circumstances, and really, I can fit both of those situations with the same model if it includes both monetary policy and fiscal policy. I think that's exactly what I'm basing my response on.

[Y2HH]

Yes, there was a rise in interest rates prior to the bursting of the 2000 and 2007 bubbles...but it was a much smaller comparative rise, and the "Slowdown" in those cases was vastly accelerated by the bursting of bubbles that the Fed had allowed to inflate/directly inflated. If he had raised interest rates more slowly...do you really think that it would have led to a soft landing on the bubble? I can't think of an example when that happens. The bubble was going to become a major inflation push in both cases once it existed, effectively forcing the fed to act, and deflating a financial bubble without puncturing it seems about as difficult as...deflating an actual bubble without puncturing it.

 

The real thing to do is actually have a regulatory system that prevents those speculative bubbles. If you allow them to exist, then this boom and bust is the result. That's exactly how things operated in the days before the Great Depression produced meaningful financial regulation, and we've now seen repeatedly, globally, that Central Banks can be rapidly rendered powerless by the scale of these bursting bubbles.

 

 

ANd on the other point;

What we can do is come up with models that allow for the comparison of a variety of economic circumstances, and really, I can fit both of those situations with the same model if it includes both monetary policy and fiscal policy. I think that's exactly what I'm basing my response on.

 

Sounds simple enough...the only problem is that economic control doesn't actually exist...but the "experts" always claim it does, and they will be the one that can do it. The fact is, they didn't see these things as bubbles until it was much too late...and I'm not talking about the alarmists that guess something is a bubble early on, way before it's actually a bubble. Every once in a while a blind squirrel finds a nut...but these guys can never consistently call these things...they get lucky once and suddenly they're bubble calling experts that can see into the future. What Greenspan did was typical knee jerk reaction striving for 'phantom' economic control...raising the rates as if he ever had control of that .com economy was and is a joke. When the pop occurred, combined with the newly high interest rates, it took a bad situation and made it even worse...when the very intention all along was control the deflation of that bubble.

 

The only illusion was controlling it in the first place. Greenspan had no control, but he and others were just arrogant enough to be sure they did.

 

Rinse repeat the housing bubble. They sure controlled that one oh so well, too. Not even a decade after the previous bubble...they allowed another one to grow and pop just the same. And they'll do it again. And again. And no matter how many times it happens, someone, somewhere will have "called it"...and they'll be heralded as an economic genius by whatever political party can gain points by using it to their advantage.

 

If it were that easy to control an economy by imposing a few regulations to curb speculation...we'd be doing it...and we'd have perfect growth year after year with nary a bubble to be seen.

 

But that'll never happen, no matter how much regulation you impose...because it's all an illusion that people are convinced can be controlled.

Edited December 13, 2012 by Y2HH

[Balta1701]

We actually did pretty well from 1945-1985 on avoiding or at least minimizing bubbles that explode, but that regime was dismantled. Doesn't prevent recessions or bad policies, but it did avoid 2008-like debacles.

[hogan873]

I suppose I became a Democrat because of my parents. My dad was a union officer for the United Mine Workers, and both of my parents are very liberal. It's really the way I was brought up. However, I don't think I'm nearly as liberal as they are (especially my dad). There are some issues I lean conservative (gun control, death penalty, immigration), and there are other issues I lean liberal. Overall, I just cannot identify with the republicans today at all. I think my view (and others' views I would imagine) of the republican party has been hurt by the Tea Party and the ridiculous fighting with the President. It's hard to respect a party when members have said that their primary goal was to make Obama a one-term president.

[Middle Buffalo]

On certain issues, I lean to the conservative side, and on certain issues I lean to the liberal side, to a varying degree on both accounts.

It would be a much better country if more people thought and acted in this way instead of treating politics with blind loyalty like they're rooting for their favorite team.

[StrangeSox]

There is nothing inherently good about a centrist position.

[Y2HH]

There is nothing inherently good about a centrist position.

 

Yes, actually, there is. It means the person is willing to look at both sides and move toward whichever side he/she happens to agree with.

 

There IS, however, something wrong with a pure right or left position, regardless of topic.

[Jenksismyhero]

There is nothing inherently good about a centrist position.

 

I'm such a huge fan of your position against Republicans stonewalling everything Democrats have tried to do the last decade.

 

 

If you're a liberal - never give up on your ideals! Everything conservatives believe is f***ing crazy!

 

If you're a conservative - god, stop being a dick and compromise!

[StrangeSox]

I want to kill zero Jews in concentration camps. They want to kill 100 Jews. A compromise of 50 is good policy! Yeah, it's intentionally absurd, but to illustrate a point.

 

There's nothing inherently good about a centrist position because what is centrist is defined by what's at the ends of the current political spectrum. It's the Overton Window. If one 'side' stands pat for a decade while the other moves to an extreme position, suddenly the 'center' is redefined. There's nothing inherently bad about a position that happens to fall in between where the two parties' current positions are, either. Policy is either good or bad regardless of where it falls on some ill-defined and constantly shifting political spectrum.

 

This is different from tribal cheerleading, which, to be fair, is more what Middle Buffalo referenced.

[StrangeSox]

I'm such a huge fan of your position against Republicans stonewalling everything Democrats have tried to do the last decade.

 

 

If you're a liberal - never give up on your ideals! Everything conservatives believe is f***ing crazy!

 

If you're a conservative - god, stop being a dick and compromise!

 

I think Republican policies are absolute s*** but I don't believe that the best policies always or even mostly come from 'centrist' compromises.

 

That has nothing to do with our dysfunctional Senate rules, though. Elections should have consequences.

[Jenksismyhero]

I dunno, I think with issues like immigration or even this fiscal cliff, taking the extreme positions of both parties and finding that middle ground is really the best for everyone. Issues like abortion, perhaps not, but even then you have SOME compromise in the middle from most people (i.e., abortion ok in cases of rape/incest/health concerns).

[Y2HH]

I want to kill zero Jews in concentration camps. They want to kill 100 Jews. A compromise of 50 is good policy! Yeah, it's intentionally absurd, but to illustrate a point.

 

There's nothing inherently good about a centrist position because what is centrist is defined by what's at the ends of the current political spectrum. It's the Overton Window. If one 'side' stands pat for a decade while the other moves to an extreme position, suddenly the 'center' is redefined. There's nothing inherently bad about a position that happens to fall in between where the two parties' current positions are, either. Policy is either good or bad regardless of where it falls on some ill-defined and constantly shifting political spectrum.

 

This is different from tribal cheerleading, which, to be fair, is more what Middle Buffalo referenced.

 

This is just about the worst analogy ever attempted.

 

Do not pass go...and proceed directly to FAIL.

[southsider2k5]

This is just about the worst analogy ever attempted.

 

Do not pass go...and proceed directly to FAIL.

 

Seriously. That is AOL chat debate right there.

[Y2HH]

Seriously. That is AOL chat debate right there.

 

It also completely misses and ignores everything I said about being a centrist being able to objectively look at both sides and choose one.

 

In the case of deciding whether to kill 100 Jews in a concentration camp...I'd choose the side that was going for zero, in that specific case. But it highlights exactly what I was attempting to highlight...it doesn't tie me into a forced and bad decision simply because I'm on one side or the other. It allows ME to choose what's right/wrong and go that direction.

[StrangeSox]

I dunno, I think with issues like immigration or even this fiscal cliff, taking the extreme positions of both parties and finding that middle ground is really the best for everyone. Issues like abortion, perhaps not, but even then you have SOME compromise in the middle from most people (i.e., abortion ok in cases of rape/incest/health concerns).

 

I should clarify that there's a difference between what has to be done in any given political climate to get something passed versus what is actually the best policy.

 

If the 'fiscal cliff' is largely a crisis of our own making and any of the 'compromise' positions currently being floated out there would actively hurt our economy and the most vulnerable members of our society, then it shouldn't be enacted. Hardliners holding to either extreme and preventing a bad deal from being made can be a positive thing, even if I don't agree with that hardline position (see: what the WH was offering over the debt ceiling and the tea party hardliners refusing to vote for it because it included tax increases on the wealthy).

 

On the other hand, as I said before, if one side A stands pat and the other B becomes increasingly extreme, then the definition of what's a centrist compromise and what becomes "extreme" shifts. Suddenly, what might have been perfectly good and reasonable policy from party A gets treated as one end of the extreme, and whatever 'centrist compromise' is reached is driven mainly by extremists in party B. Or, maybe A and B were close originally, but that was bad policy, and now B's extreme shift is to good policy.

[StrangeSox]

It also completely misses and ignores everything I said about being a centrist being able to objectively look at both sides and choose one.

 

In the case of deciding whether to kill 100 Jews in a concentration camp...I'd choose the side that was going for zero, in that specific case. But it highlights exactly what I was attempting to highlight...it doesn't tie me into a forced and bad decision simply because I'm on one side or the other. It allows ME to choose what's right/wrong and go that direction.

 

You can objectively look at both (all, let's not fall into the trap of treating every position as a binary choice!) sides and still routinely and regularly support policies that would be considered leftist or liberal or conservative or libertarian. There's nothing inherently good about assembling a mix of those ideologies, and in fact it may be philosophically incoherent. On the other hand, as I said, there's nothing inherently wrong with happening to find yourself there, either.

[Y2HH]

You can objectively look at both (all, let's not fall into the trap of treating every position as a binary choice!) sides and still routinely and regularly support policies that would be considered leftist or liberal or conservative or libertarian. There's nothing inherently good about assembling a mix of those ideologies, and in fact it may be philosophically incoherent. On the other hand, as I said, there's nothing inherently wrong with happening to find yourself there, either.

 

Ah, ok...I see what you're trying to say.

[Jenksismyhero]

I should clarify that there's a difference between what has to be done in any given political climate to get something passed versus what is actually the best policy.

 

If the 'fiscal cliff' is largely a crisis of our own making and any of the 'compromise' positions currently being floated out there would actively hurt our economy and the most vulnerable members of our society, then it shouldn't be enacted. Hardliners holding to either extreme and preventing a bad deal from being made can be a positive thing, even if I don't agree with that hardline position (see: what the WH was offering over the debt ceiling and the tea party hardliners refusing to vote for it because it included tax increases on the wealthy).

 

On the other hand, as I said before, if one side A stands pat and the other B becomes increasingly extreme, then the definition of what's a centrist compromise and what becomes "extreme" shifts. Suddenly, what might have been perfectly good and reasonable policy from party A gets treated as one end of the extreme, and whatever 'centrist compromise' is reached is driven mainly by extremists in party B. Or, maybe A and B were close originally, but that was bad policy, and now B's extreme shift is to good policy.

 

Kinda like immigration, which has now shifted so far to the left anything but blanket amnesty is "you hate brown people!"

 

[bmags]

I agree. I think the polarization of the parties is not a bad thing. Centrist candidates have largely proven to be more corrupt and absolutely more pork-oriented. That said, I'm a democrat, no qualms about saying this. I disagree with them on a few of their economic items recently, but prefer to pressure members in the party rather than not vote for them, let the opponent win, and lose any progress I might have gained for my preferred policy preferences.

 

I am a democrat on the national level, and forced to be on a local level often just because their bizarre social policies they'll enforce. I don't think the national ideologies make sense on a local level, and we end up just seeing a one party system that becomes very corrupt and enforces policies against interest of greater good.

 

I'm a big supporter of what SS said. It annoyed me NSS's "neither party" thread "where people should be". It's largely patting yourself on the back for no reason.

[StrangeSox]

Kinda like immigration, which has now shifted so far to the left anything but blanket amnesty is "you hate brown people!"

 

I disagree with that characterization (the DREAM Act isn't blanket amnesty, and I don't see any major push for such a policy), but that could potentially be an example. If Republicans have held a consistent position on immigration since the post-Reagan amnesty (I don't think they have) while Democrats have run far to the left, advocating total amnesty and open borders (they haven't), then someone who has been politically literate since the 80's wouldn't need to take a 'centrist' or objective look at which policies have merits. They may even have deeper philosophical beliefs that lead them to support one policy (e.g. libertarians and open borders) without needing to consider the alternative at length.

[bmags]

Kinda like immigration, which has now shifted so far to the left anything but blanket amnesty is "you hate brown people!"

 

This is grossly inaccurate.

[StrangeSox]

I agree. I think the polarization of the parties is not a bad thing. Centrist candidates have largely proven to be more corrupt and absolutely more pork-oriented. That said, I'm a democrat, no qualms about saying this. I disagree with them on a few of their economic items recently, but prefer to pressure members in the party rather than not vote for them, let the opponent win, and lose any progress I might have gained for my preferred policy preferences.

 

I am a democrat on the national level, and forced to be on a local level often just because their bizarre social policies they'll enforce. I don't think the national ideologies make sense on a local level, and we end up just seeing a one party system that becomes very corrupt and enforces policies against interest of greater good.

 

I'm a big supporter of what SS said. It annoyed me NSS's "neither party" thread "where people should be". It's largely patting yourself on the back for no reason.

 

The more important issue imo is epistemic closure, where you literally start rejecting any and all information that runs counter to what you already "know." You can still be a dyed-in-wool radical leftist, a minarchist libertarian, a paleoconservative etc. without falling into that trap.