Archief - Obama vs. Romney: voor wie zou jij stemmen?

Cin zei:

Keeping up appearances @ the RNC:





Robin Koerner: Ron Paul Won

Klik om te vergroten...

And that's kind of the point. Faced with the unknown of just how many Paul delegates fell into that all or nothing category, the RNC and Romney did what majority factions do in convention settings: they employ their superior numbers and stomp out dissent. To open the door to them in further compromises or allowing the issuance of minority reports or whatever parliamentary procedure the savvy Paul delegates had up their sleeves would have meant delay, irritation and perhaps much greater than necessary tumult at the convention.

Klik om te vergroten...

Indeed, they had become masters of the rules, learning them in detail and using them to their advantage at every turn.

But in the end, after they had exhausted all of their options, the Paul supporters broke the rules.

Klik om te vergroten...

Mr. Ryan also cited bankruptcy numbers to make the point that failing businesses mean fewer jobs. “In 1980 under Jimmy Carter, 330,000 businesses filed for bankruptcy,” he said. “Last year, under President Obama’s failed leadership, 1.4 million businesses filed for bankruptcy.”

But he appeared to conflate business bankruptcies and much more numerous personal bankruptcies. Of the 331,264 bankruptcies in 1980, only 43,694 were for businesses, according to the American Bankruptcy Institute.

Of the 1,410,653 total bankruptcy filings last year, 47,806 were business bankruptcies, according to the institute. And, again, the numbers are falling. In 2009, there were 60,837 business bankruptcies. In July, the latest month with complete statistics, business bankruptcies were 22 percent lower than a year earlier, and personal bankruptcies were down 11 percent.

Klik om te vergroten...

Silmarunya zei:

Geen Democratische logica, gewoon logica. De schuld laten stijgen als het economisch goed gaat is slecht beleid. De schuld laten stijgen in tijden van crisis is haast onvermijdelijk.

De crisis was er niet gekomen mits betere regulering. That being said, de Democraten waren destijds ook maar al te happig om Wall Street te laten doen. Er moet altijd eerst een ramp gebeuren.

Klik om te vergroten...

Silmarunya zei:

Geen Democratische logica, gewoon logica. De schuld laten stijgen als het economisch goed gaat is slecht beleid. De schuld laten stijgen in tijden van crisis is haast onvermijdelijk.

Klik om te vergroten...

De crisis was er niet gekomen mits betere regulering.

Klik om te vergroten...

Straddle zei:

Het ligt nu net iets complexer dan dat. Als het economisch goed gaat moet men ook durven investeren (en ja ook als de bron daarvoor debt is). Achteraf gezien, met het benefit van hindsight, kan je altijd zeggen dat ze beter geen extra schulden hadden gemaakt met de komst van de crisis van 2008, maar dat kon je toen onmogelijk weten.

Klik om te vergroten...

Dit is resoluut onwaar. Die crisis was er evengoed doorgekomen onder Clinton, Obama, Kerry, Mc Cain, ... De banken hun balans had er niet anders uitgezien, Moody's en Finch zouden nog geknoeid hebben met de FICO scores van CDO's, AIG zou nog altijd credit default swaps hebben geshort tot op niveaus dat het niet meer betaalbaar was, de solvabiliteitspositie van elke financiele instelling zou even leveraged zijn geweest, ...

Klik om te vergroten...

Increasing home ownership has been the goal of several presidents including Roosevelt, Reagan, Clinton and George W. Bush.[121] In 1995, the GSEs like Fannie Mae began receiving government tax incentives for purchasing mortgage backed securities which included loans to low income borrowers.[122] In 1996, HUD set a goal for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that at least 42% of the mortgages they purchase be issued to borrowers whose household income was below the median in their area. This target was increased to 50% in 2000 and 52% in 2005.[123]

Klik om te vergroten...

After the military took over the government in 1973, a period of dramatic economic changes began. The Chilean economy was still faltering in the months following the coup. As the military junta itself was not particularly skilled in remedying the persistent economic difficulties, it appointed a group of Chilean economists who had been educated in the United States at the University of Chicago. Given financial and ideological support from Pinochet, the U.S., and international financial institutions, the Chicago Boys advocated laissez-faire, free-market, neoliberal, and fiscally conservative policies, in stark contrast to the extensive nationalization and centrally-planned economic programs supported by Allende.[32] Chile was drastically transformed from an economy isolated from the rest of the world, with strong government intervention, into a liberalized, world-integrated economy, where market forces were left free to guide most of the economy's decisions. [32]
Chilean (blue) and average Latin American (orange) GDP per capita (1950-2007).

Many of these reforms have been continued to this day, and according to the 2009 Index of Economic Freedom, which ranks nations according to tax burden, state control and other factors, Chile is currently the 11th most economically free nation in the world and the most free in Latin America. The resulting effect of these policies on the economy is clear from the figure (below right) showing the growth of GDP per capita since the 1973 overthrow of Salvador Allende and his socialist government. Currently, Chile is the most economically prosperous nation in Latin America according to GDP per capita. Some economists, however, argue that the short-term effects of the change to a free market system in the mid 1970s proved incredibly harmful to the Chilean economy. Instead of a sharp drop in inflation that was expected by the Chicago school economists, inflation reached 375% by conservative estimates.[33] From an economic point of view, the era can be divided into two periods. The first, from 1973 to 1982, corresponds to the period when most of the reforms were implemented. The period ended with the international debt crisis and the collapse of the Chilean economy. At that point, unemployment was extremely high, above 20 percent, and a large proportion of the banking sector had become bankrupt. But this was a worldwide crisis, and as shown in the graph showing growth in GDP per capita did not have a long lasting effect on the Chilean economy. During that first period, an economic policy that emphasized export expansion and growth was implemented. However, some economists argue that the economic recovery of the second period, from 1982 to 1990, was due to an about-face turn around of Pinochet's free market policy and the fact that, in 1982, he nationalized many of the same industries that were nationalized under Allende and fired the Chicago Boys from their government posts.[34]

Pinochet's policies were lauded internationally for transforming the Chilean economy and bringing about an "economic miracle". British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher credited him with bringing about a thriving, free-enterprise economy, while at the same time downplaying the Junta's human rights record, condemning an "organised international Left who are bent on revenge." Pinochet certainly did achieve macroeconomic success with his reforms, hindered somewhat by recession in the early 1980s. GDP growth remained steady, and Chile began a process of integration into the international economy. However, as discussed below, many social costs were paid by the lower strata of Chilean society during his experimentation with economic shock.

Social consequences

The economic policies espoused by the Chicago Boys and implemented by the junta initially caused several economic indicators to decline for Chile's lower classes.[35] Between 1970 and 1989, there were large cuts to incomes and social services. Wages decreased by 8%.[36] Family allowances in 1989 were 28% of what they had been in 1970 and the budgets for education, health and housing had dropped by over 20% on average.[36][37] The massive increases in military spending and cuts in funding to public services coincided with falling wages and steady rises in unemployment, which averaged 26% during the worldwide economic slump of 1982–1985[36] and eventually peaked at 30%.

In 1990, the LOCE act on education initiated the dismantlement of public education.[38] According to economist Manuel Riesco:

"Overall, the impact of neoliberal policies has reduced the total proportion of students in both public and private institutions in relation to the entire population, from 30 per cent in 1974 down to 25 per cent in 1990, and up only to 27 per cent today. If falling birth rates have made it possible today to attain full coverage at primary and secondary levels, the country has fallen seriously behind at tertiary level, where coverage, although now growing, is still only 32 per cent of the age group. The figure was twice as much in neighbouring Argentina and Uruguay, and even higher in developed countries—South Korea attaining a record 98 per cent coverage. Significantly, tertiary education for the upper-income fifth of the Chilean population, many of whom study in the new private universities, also reaches above 70 per cent."[38]

The junta relied on the middle class, the oligarchy, huge foreign corporations, and foreign loans to maintain itself.[39] Under Pinochet, funding of military and internal defence spending rose 120% from 1974 to 1979. Citation for both of these claims covered under Remmer, 1989--> Due to the reduction in public spending, tens of thousands of employees were fired from other state-sector jobs.[40] The oligarchy recovered most of its lost industrial and agricultural holdings, for the junta sold to private buyers most of the industries expropriated by Allende's Popular Unity government.

Financial conglomerates became major beneficiaries of the liberalized economy and the flood of foreign bank loans. Large foreign banks reinstated the credit cycle, as the Junta saw that the basic state obligations, such as resuming payment of principal and interest installments, were honored. International lending organizations such as the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, and the Inter-American Development Bank lent vast sums anew.[36] Many foreign multinational corporations such as International Telephone and Telegraph (ITT), Dow Chemical, and Firestone, all expropriated by Allende, returned to Chile.[36]

Klik om te vergroten...

Silmarunya zei:

Klinkt goed, maar:

Obama vs. Romney Electoral Map

Obama blijft comfortabel aan de leiding, maar kijk eens naar de 'recent changes': dat zijn allemaal toss-ups die naar Romney beginnen te neigen of Democratische staten die toss-ups worden. Het kan een tijdelijk gevolg zijn van de mediastorm rond de RNC, maar toch...

De Republikeinse Super PAC hebben enorm veel geld in kas. Geld kan niet zomaar worden omgezet in stemmen, maar het kan toch de doorslag geven in krappe races. Afwachten wat de DNC gaat geven, die belooft alvast een leuke show te worden.

Klik om te vergroten...

Straddle zei:

Het ligt nu net iets complexer dan dat. Als het economisch goed gaat moet men ook durven investeren (en ja ook als de bron daarvoor debt is). Achteraf gezien, met het benefit van hindsight, kan je altijd zeggen dat ze beter geen extra schulden hadden gemaakt met de komst van de crisis van 2008, maar dat kon je toen onmogelijk weten.

Dit is resoluut onwaar. Die crisis was er evengoed doorgekomen onder Clinton, Obama, Kerry, Mc Cain, ... De banken hun balans had er niet anders uitgezien, Moody's en Finch zouden nog geknoeid hebben met de FICO scores van CDO's, AIG zou nog altijd credit default swaps hebben geshort tot op niveaus dat het niet meer betaalbaar was, de solvabiliteitspositie van elke financiele instelling zou even leveraged zijn geweest, ...

Klik om te vergroten...

Cooldehla zei:

Welke methodologie steekt er daar achter?

Josh putnam heeft alle polls genomen tot nu toe, die resultaten geaggregeerd en er is nog steeds niks verandert in zijn college spectrum map.

Klik om te vergroten...

nite zei:

Chili is 11's gerangschikt op de schaal van economische vrijheid en presteert duidelijk beter dan haar socialistische buren? Dit blijft gewoon gelden hoor. Ok ze hebben een aantal liberaliseringen teruggeschroefd, maar het eindresultaat blijft (zelfs na die nationalisaties) dat Chili nog steeds erg economisch vrij is vergeleken met haar buren. Als ge dat voorbeeld wilt gebruiken om het succes van economische regulering te demonstreren, dan zal dat voorbeeld u niet helpen. Want Chili is nog steeds erg economisch vrij.

Klik om te vergroten...