Is George W. Bush the worst president ever?

[1veedo]

If the natural rate of unemployment is the intersect of the Phillips Curve...then the market should reach it, so long as government isn't preventing it.

It's only a mathematical distinction. I assume you have studied limits before and know what a limit is. It basically means the same thing in this case but mathematically it's not a number you ever "reach" you just get infinitely close to it.

edit -- Just for distinction we're talking about full-employment balanced budget here. When the government manages finances the way the people who discovered the phillips curve advocated the government manage finances you limit upon the natural rate of unemployment. Behind almost all of this is mathematics backing it up and in this case we're really talking about limits, not that it really matters in the end.

Spending wouldn't shift the Phillips curve as far as I can tell. An increase in the minimum wage would shift the Phillips Curve up though cus it would prevent the market from clearing or from clearing at the previous level. Though of course it would simply increase unemployment....for the money to be there to meet the new wage level there would probably need to be an increase in the money supply...which is inflation.

Yes you're right the natural rate of unemployment can be affected by things like minimum wage and especially job training programs but the basic function of the phillips curve says that the more the government spends the more inflation we have. A little bit of inflation is all right of course and you always have a little bit of inflation, as you can clearly see from the phillips curve, but if you spend too much and don't tax enough it causes higher levels of inflation and at the same time lowers unemployment. That's what the phillips curve fundamentally shows.

And inflation is caused by creating new money (and yeah spending it...but most of the times new money gets created, it gets spent...given enough time anyways, lol)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Fk_2iRfC18

Usually but not always. You can create money and if savings are high enough and investment low enough it would not cause inflation.

Anyways, increase in the money supply is what causes inflation. Tax cuts don't because they might drive up prices but not in an inflationary way...cus giving the people the money means government has less to spend. And Reagan's monetary policy was not bad...if you're talking about Paul Volcker. He had the will to end inflation and he did it...well most of the way anyways, lol. We didn't persist as long as we needed to, my friend says it's cus Mexico threatened to stop trading with us if we did cus it caused interest rates on loans lent out from the US to Latin American countries to skyrocket.

If you lower taxes you increase the money supply thus causing inflation. The relationship looks like this:

Lowering taxes without decreasing spending -> increases money supply -> causes more inflation

It's an indirect effect caused by the fact that the government is borrowing money, mostly from the FED. When money is borrowed from other countries it could cause deflation but usually the FED even picks up the slack there, creating money for the government to pay back.

Also, I'm pretty sure stagflation is just the end-result of inflation. Hyperinflation is continuous inflation without ending it, but stagflation from what I've gathered seems to be the end-result of an inflation. It was long believed that governments and central banks had to balance inflation and unemployement...

Stagflation can be caused by a couple things. You're probably right though; if you spend too much and don't raise taxes you end up shifting the phillips curve until you run into a problem of stagflation.

[Thinman]

I think the terms best and worst are hard to apply to presidents as each president is faced with different challenges during their terms. How they respond to these challenges is what makes them an effective president in my mind. In Bush's case, has his policies made us a better country than when he took office. I think on a number of issues, foreign policy, energy, the economy to say a few, the answer is no.

[stealth_swimmer]

It's only a mathematical distinction. I assume you have studied limits before and know what a limit is. It basically means the same thing in this case but mathematically it's not a number you ever "reach" you just get infinitely close to it.

edit -- Just for distinction we're talking about full-employment balanced budget here. When the government manages finances the way the people who discovered the phillips curve advocated the government manage finances you limit upon the natural rate of unemployment. Behind almost all of this is mathematics backing it up and in this case we're really talking about limits, not that it really matters in the end.Yes you're right the natural rate of unemployment can be affected by things like minimum wage and especially job training programs but the basic function of the phillips curve says that the more the government spends the more inflation we have. A little bit of inflation is all right of course and you always have a little bit of inflation, as you can clearly see from the phillips curve, but if you spend too much and don't tax enough it causes higher levels of inflation and at the same time lowers unemployment. That's what the phillips curve fundamentally shows.Usually but not always. You can create money and if savings are high enough and investment low enough it would not cause inflation.If you lower taxes you increase the money supply thus causing inflation. The relationship looks like this:

Lowering taxes without decreasing spending -> increases money supply -> causes more inflation

It's an indirect effect caused by the fact that the government is borrowing money, mostly from the FED. When money is borrowed from other countries it could cause deflation but usually the FED even picks up the slack there, creating money for the government to pay back.Stagflation can be caused by a couple things. You're probably right though; if you spend too much and don't raise taxes you end up shifting the phillips curve until you run into a problem of stagflation.

I know what limits are (though I failed calculus ). Anyways, the natural rate of unemployment is 5%....but some places actually get below 5% unemployment.

The thing about making new money is that it STIMULATES SPENDING. Why? cus at first people hold on to their money cus they see prices going up...then when prices continue to go up a bit they decide to spend it while it still holds some value...and prices continue to increase...then they figure that the higher prices are there to stay, as the economy adjusts to the new level.

I haven't gotten into it very much yet, but I read somewhere that after inflations, after the market adjusts, the normal consumption/spending ratio gets restored.


As for cutting taxes without cutting spending...the thing is that cutting taxes means the government has less to spend, so the only ways they can still spend the same amount or more is buy borrowing more and/or making new money...both of those things add money into the system.


Also, I emphasize money creation because when it comes to the government borrowing, enough of it raises interest rates...so that puts a hamper on the investments of the private sector because it means certain investments are no longer viable...that's part of the "crowding out effect" as it's called.

[1veedo]

I know what limits are (though I failed calculus ). Anyways, the natural rate of unemployment is 5%....but some places actually get below 5% unemployment.

Well yeah that just depends on who you talk to. It's not a very important distinction anyway. The general consensus (during the 90s) is that 4% is below it and 5% is above it so the natural rate of unemployment should be somewhere in between, but usually closer to 5% I think is where most estimates were. I'm not sure where it is today but it's certainly above 5% by now (probably below 5.5% maybe but I'm just guess at this point, and the numbers probably aren't even in yet to calculate this).

As for cutting taxes without cutting spending...the thing is that cutting taxes means the government has less to spend, so the only ways they can still spend the same amount or more is buy borrowing more and/or making new money...both of those things add money into the system.

Exactly. That's why I'm saying excess spending in face of lower taxes causes inflation. If you do this long enough the phillips curve permanently shifts into a less desirable, more stagflated position (steeper), and this is exactly what Bush is doing. You were disagreeing with this point earlier. In the long run Bush is making both unemployment and inflation worse. And it's not just something small like he and congress and everyone else are actually causing a lot of problems.

This is why I always think politicians are being dishonest when they talk about lowering taxes. Sure they can lower taxes but mathematically their spending comes back around and bites everyone in the ass, particularly poorer and middle class people (while rich people by the very nature of their finances aren't bothered as much, and even poor people who are in debt are affected less than middle class people who usually hold little debt and few investments, while assets they do control depreciate in value). "Lowering taxes" is almost the same thing as saying "tax the middle class more but lets be sneaky about it." Nobody can actually lower taxes in a real sense and in fact higher taxes is usually better for everyone in the long run. Not too high of course but enough to balance the budget at full employment (which makes the government run a deficit but nothing like we see today).

Now if the government could just cut spending we could have lower taxes and a sane economy.

[ZexCui]

Yeah I didn't agree with his post either
IMHO Ronald Reagen put us in a similar recession as we are in now in the 80's due to his economic philospohies. Reagen should get some mention as worse President ever due to his "Reaganomic" policies

i lol'ed.

[gympunk]

abraham lincoln was the worst. followed by fdr.

Yes, the 2 Presidents who bravely lead the country through it's 2 most bloody wars & most dangerous points in history are indeed the worst?,,,,odd opinion.

[Chris A]

he's a complete idiot. But he's really only a puppet for who's really controlling things behind the scenes.

[ZexCui]

Yes, the 2 Presidents who bravely lead the country through it's 2 most bloody wars & most dangerous points in history are indeed the worst?,,,,odd opinion.

they got us into them in the first place. (read up on how fdr coerced japan into attacking us. and also how he attacked german submarines well before germany declared war on the US. hitler was actually on good terms with the US even during that time, but his patience ran out, and after japan attacked us, he really had no choice but to declare war on the US.)

it has already been said why fdr's socialism made him awful. and lincoln completely ignored the constitution when it came to states rights and habeus corpus. he also instituted the federal income tax i believe for the first time in the US's history.

read up. your ignorance can be cured.

[gympunk]

they got us into them in the first place. (read up on how fdr coerced japan into attacking us. and also how he attacked german submarines well before germany declared war on the US. hitler was actually on good terms with the US even during that time, but his patience ran out, and after japan attacked us, he really had no choice but to declare war on the US.) it has already been said why fdr's socialism made him awful. and lincoln completely ignored the constitution when it came to states rights and habeus corpus. he also instituted the federal income tax i believe for the first time in the US's history. read up. your ignorance can be cured.

Thanks for the details. It's offical: you are clueless.

[ZexCui]

Thanks for the details. It's offical: you are clueless.

do/can you read books?

try the rise and fall of the third reich, by william shirer, it confirms what i said.

http://www.amazon.com/Rise-Third-Rei.../dp/0671728687

[5-8]

Warren G. Harding mofukkas!

[Dr CROHN]

I vote yes. He has absolutely destroyed the United States in his 8 years in office. Unnecessary war, financial collapse, lies, deception....
What do you think misc.?

No ****! This is new!!

[1veedo]

Sorry to bump this I've had no Internet for a while but I just found an interesting quote by Ron Paul.

"Government spending is always a “tax” burden on the American people and is never equally or fairly distributed. The poor and low-middle income workers always suffer the most from the deceitful tax of inflation and borrowing."

This is expanding on what I said earlier about "not being able to reduce taxes in a real sense". If you reduce taxes you have to reduce spending. If you reduce taxes but dont reduce spending you end up, in reality, taxing the middle class more. The current economic system is just a game of numbers and too few Americans actually understand this.

[jmonty]

do/can you read books?

try the rise and fall of the third reich, by william shirer, it confirms what i said.

http://www.amazon.com/Rise-Third-Rei.../dp/0671728687

hey, i have that book too! but it has been about 6 years since i've read it..