Politics Obama - Actually doing a good job?

My plan for rampant speculation in the market is to exit. Not difficult. Your post, in the form of a question, required a broader perspective to clearly illustrate my point of view. I think it addressed the question in a manner easily understood by all, even those who would not normally participate in markets subjected to excessive speculation from time to time.

There is a difference between planning, which is easy - and - having the best plan. For example I planned for future economic outcomes that could impact my business, but my plan failed and I am suffering the consequences. In hindsight the correct plan is now very clear.

Disagreement is the beauty in free capital markets. You go into the market with you point of view, I go in with mine. If you are correct, you will be on the correct side of your market participation. I love this. Some prefer, equal outcomes regardless of being correct or incorrect - do you?
--- merged: Jul 26, 2012 at 12:19 PM ---

Nice try. Come back with this little fact in percentage terms! Give or take the US consumes about 20 million barrels of oil per day. Isn't that about $2 billion per day (just doing the math in my head), or the "subsidy" you describe is about 2 days, or 2/365, or close to .5%?

 

Dude....the federal subsidies, actually closer to $10-40 billion/yr (the Democratic proposal was to cut $4 billion), is tied to production NOT consumption. Nice try!​

 

Are you missing the point. O.k. so the "subsidy" is 5% (I am not even going to address what is meant by "subsidy").

How would you finish this sentence:

If not for government subsidies the US oil industry would...

 

....still make record profits, not suck off the public tit (90 years is enough) and be part of the debt solution rather than contributing to the debt.

 

We agree. I support ending all true subsidies.

Now, what is a "subsidy". You make me think of the people who buy cars. The car companies will give a rebate to sell cars making people think they are getting a deal - but the reality is that the rebate is built into the price of the car, the financing, or in other areas - profit margins get protected. And so it goes with your view of oil company subsidies. Government taxes get protected on way or another - and oil companies certainly pay net taxes.

Either way I almost never support government "subsidies" of private enterprise. I hate government "subsidizing" stadiums and giving large companies big tax incentives to relocate or build facilitates in their city or state. Often the tax payer gets burned.
--- merged: Jul 26, 2012 at 7:18 PM ---

Then you should ignore rather than respond when you want to move on. Because you just made a point I think is wrong. People do speculate on the weather. Have you forgotten the debate on "global climate change". If those who believe humans are causing global warming invest in things that they believe will minimize global climate change - and if they are correct (think of Al Gore) billions of dollars can be made - this market is ripe for speculators.

That is o.k., and it is o.k. that I disagree. That was my point to you on this. A plan to exit a market with excessive speculation, is a plan and is not difficult to execute. A hedge strategy, is a plan...

You may argue that in the US there was housing speculation and exit was not an option. My response is that most people did not enter the housing investment market, they see their homes as what they are, homes. Those with that view did not do sub-prime loans, they did not buy Miami beach condos to flip, etc., they never entered that market. And legitimate investors could have easily executed an exit strategy.

 

I don't follow where you want to go. I am a "troll" anyway, so what is the point?

 

You get hung up on trivial matters, with a misdirected focus avoiding the primary thesis of a post. You make general statements that are incorrect, and when it is pointed out you respond by saying it is off point. If given an example to support a statement, there is a problem with the example, if an analogy is given there is a problem with the analogy - if an example is not given, etc., there is a problem with that. Your purpose is not clear. This is a forum for discussion, are you losing focus on that? Is my participation, "trolling"? Is responding to questions, and requests for clarification "trolling"? Give me specifics on where I went off point, and why the post I was responding to was on point?

 

Weather can up in context of planning, reread the posts. You had issues with the concept of planning.
Then you had issues with the weather in the context of speculation. People do speculate on the weather.
You had issue with speculation affecting the weather. Some people speculating on the weather strongly believe that humans are the root cause of current global climate change.

Why do I need to restate and give context towhat anyone can clearly read?

 

In your previous post you asked a question. I answered your question. That is how discussion works. We are engaged in a exchange, it is not unilateral or a lecture. Given the nature of a dynamic exchange, early points and examples may not be clear to you or me, that is why it is dynamic. In the end it may all come together or it may fall apart. No one is doing dissertations here - I am not preparing broad bullet point outlines to lead you or anyone else. Nor am I a professional writer, academic, politician, or paid opinion giver. If you don't like my style, ignore what I write. I do not post my initial thoughts off topic - every time you complain about it, check it out, it is in response to mostly obtuse comments.

If it was off topic when I brought it up, why isn't it off topic now? Double standards! Perhaps you don't see it but it is far too obvious - a very unbecoming. If you disagree with me why not just state the disagreement?

 

Ace, what you believe is the extreme right rhetoric of Obama as "tax and spend" liberal (or socialist)

When in fact, Obama is the smallest government spender since Reagan.

From that bastion of liberalism, the Wall Street Journal:


And, the biggest tax cutter since Reagan as well....just more directed to the middle class and small businesses, not the top 1%.

How about your president? Reagan and Bush both "caved" on Social Security reform. Well, Reagan compromised, Bush caved and did nothing.

See: Blueprint for a Secure Energy Future

Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, (ed: or anecdotes); or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.

- John Adams​

​

Enjoy.

 

I think spending is out of control - and went out of control prior to Obama taking office. I have made that point clear many times. You misrepresent my view.

I think our tax structure is totally broken. I favor a system based on consumption - I know many disagree, both liberals and conservatives. I would support tax simplification and fewer or flatter tax rates. I recognize the possibility that net taxes may need to go up to address the national debt. I have made this point clear. Again, you misstate my view.

I have never called Obama a "socialist".

I question the data and assumptions that went into the calculations above.

The Bush administration failed in regard to Social Security reform - no argument from me. Clinton and Obama have failed as well. Bush proposed a solution, has Obama put a plan on the table? I think the Bush proposal was demagogued, and he was focused on "the war against terror" (short-hand for whatever it means to the reader, regardless of meaning he was focused on it rather than domestic policy).

Adams was correct.
--- merged: Aug 1, 2012 at 4:59 PM ---

I occasionally try to use humor but I am not a kidder.

I also on occasion reread what is written to see if I have gone astray. I have not on this line of discussion. Nothing you can write at this point will change my view on has transpired.

 

My view is that your issue with my posts have everything to do with my responses to you. You make a comment about planning, I refute it - you have a problem. Etc., Etc., Etc., Etc. It is all there available to you to read. Including this point here, which I am restating. It is clear to me that you are simply being trifling with me. If that is how you roll, more power to you - it is of no consequence to me.