Deprecated: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is deprecated, use preg_replace_callback instead in /home/public/Sources/Load.php(225) : runtime-created function on line 3
The Obameter tracks which campaign promises are fulfilled
I Read This
November 21, 2018, 12:39:20 EST *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: If you have any issues at all, visit our support site.
 
   Home   Help Search Calendar Login Register  
Pages: 1 [2] 3
  Print  
Author Topic: The Obameter tracks which campaign promises are fulfilled  (Read 9846 times)
wodan46
Pundit
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1469


« Reply #15 on: April 19, 2009, 19:29:39 EDT »

I wasn't holding the presidents to any standard.  I was simply asking, under the current administration, is the situation making a turn for the better.  Even the situation still has a negative slope, it is at the very least curving upwards.
Logged

The plural of "anecdote" is "anecdotes". Not "data".
Medivh
Pundit
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3466


Power-mad elf


« Reply #16 on: April 19, 2009, 23:22:08 EDT »

...negative value, perhaps?
Logged

And if i catch you comin' back my way
I'm gonna serve it to you
And that ain't what you want to hear
But that's what I'll do
-- "Seven Nation Army", The White Stripes

So what you're telling me is that LTV's fudge factor means more than it's independent variable?
Yes...
Ihlosi
Political Analyst
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 232


« Reply #17 on: April 20, 2009, 02:41:26 EDT »

...negative value, perhaps?

I think wodan was, in fact, talking about the first derivative with respect to time. "Things are still going downhill, but at least they're doing so more slowly than they did earlier."
Logged
Medivh
Pundit
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3466


Power-mad elf


« Reply #18 on: April 20, 2009, 05:04:51 EDT »

Ah. The slope function is curving upwards rather than the slope its self.
Logged

And if i catch you comin' back my way
I'm gonna serve it to you
And that ain't what you want to hear
But that's what I'll do
-- "Seven Nation Army", The White Stripes

So what you're telling me is that LTV's fudge factor means more than it's independent variable?
Yes...
wodan46
Pundit
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1469


« Reply #19 on: April 20, 2009, 11:56:42 EDT »

1st Derivative(Slope)=Negative
2nd Derivative(Acceleration)=Positive

In short, Obama may be committing misdeeds and mistakes, but at a rate less than Bush, and is over time implementing many sensible policies and serious attempts to deal with current problems.  As much as it would be nice to think that the bailout and stimulus could have been handled more effectively, the current political environment, for all of its improvement, limits what can and can't be done, and we still need more time before we get a truly left wing candidate.

In the mean time, Republicans are hilarious now that they are out of power.  All they do is sit around saying OH NOES OBAMA=COMMUNAZI, never mind that an actual communist would not have given billions to bail out a corporation.
Logged

The plural of "anecdote" is "anecdotes". Not "data".
Current
Pundit
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3141


« Reply #20 on: April 20, 2009, 14:05:31 EDT »

I certainly agree that Obama is an advance on GWB.  That isn't saying much though.

Bailing out large corporations is perhaps not a communist thing to do.  It is though something that socialists of various ilks have supported and done before.  The pay-off is obvious, companies that are dependent on the government can be controlled de-facto by the government.  The question is to what degree this will happen.

I'll refrain from differentiating or integrating Obama. Wink
Logged
wodan46
Pundit
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1469


« Reply #21 on: April 21, 2009, 11:44:00 EDT »

Bailing out large corporations is perhaps not a communist thing to do.  It is though something that socialists of various ilks have supported and done before.  The pay-off is obvious, companies that are dependent on the government can be controlled de-facto by the government.  The question is to what degree this will happen.
I hope as much as possible.  They screwed up, the government bails them out, they better listen to what the government says in the future, if we give the bailout with no strings attached, they'll just do it all over again.
Logged

The plural of "anecdote" is "anecdotes". Not "data".
Heq
Trouble
Pundit
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1391



« Reply #22 on: April 21, 2009, 13:23:28 EDT »

Ah, but now the government is on the bit for keeping them solvent.

As the dems cannot allow the banks to go under (politically) the banks can now get their loot in vast quantities as needed, because if the administration says "No, you wasted the whole nut being a dickass and making insane bets." they get tarred and feathered too.

It's kinda like Iraq, the only way to justify the money you spent before is to spend more.
Logged

"No common man could believe such a thing, you'd have to be an intellectual to fall for anything as stupid as that."-Orwell
Current
Pundit
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3141


« Reply #23 on: April 21, 2009, 14:51:36 EDT »

Bailing out large corporations is perhaps not a communist thing to do.  It is though something that socialists of various ilks have supported and done before.  The pay-off is obvious, companies that are dependent on the government can be controlled de-facto by the government.  The question is to what degree this will happen.
I hope as much as possible.  They screwed up, the government bails them out, they better listen to what the government says in the future, if we give the bailout with no strings attached, they'll just do it all over again.
The government though have little understanding of banking.  Most of those who are administrating the TARP are hired from the big banks.

There are, unfortunately, few good possibilities here.  Government may run the banks.  In this case they will almost certainly do a very bad job of it.  That is because firstly they don't know how to do it. Secondly they haven't much incentive to do it well in the long term, they are interested in supporting their supporters and winning elections.  The sensible way to win election is to be very generous with credit to voters for a few years, eventually you will be out of government and the next government will have to deal with the consequences of your generousity.

In the UK some of the nationalized banks have already introduced questions about political affiliation into their mortgage approval processes.

Alternatively, banks may be allowed to operate freely and given the same protection they are today.  In that case it is quite likely that what we have seen recently will happen again.  If the fed keep interest rates low and the government implicitly agree to bailout banks if they go bust then it is quite likely that the banks will take on large amounts of risk again and go bust again.

The only long term solutions are to remove the implicit promise of fed bailouts and to remove the tendency of the fed to set interest rates absurdly low.  Unfortunately neither of these things are likely to happen.

As a result I expect another major banking crisis in the next decade.
Logged
Current
Pundit
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3141


« Reply #24 on: April 21, 2009, 14:54:57 EDT »

As one wag pointed out, what the US has now is a sort of "Government Sachs".
Logged
Heq
Trouble
Pundit
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1391



« Reply #25 on: April 26, 2009, 01:53:34 EDT »

If someone at sachs acted like this, they would be canned in a heartbeat.

"So we're gonna get ripped off?"
"Oh yeah, hugely."
"Sounds good, I'm glad I hired you Timmy."
"Not our money anyway."
"So are we ever gonna come even on this."
"Never."
"Awesome!"

This is not a conversation one hears at many investment institutes.
Logged

"No common man could believe such a thing, you'd have to be an intellectual to fall for anything as stupid as that."-Orwell
Current
Pundit
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3141


« Reply #26 on: April 27, 2009, 12:10:39 EDT »

Nobody who works as a consultant to government is stupid enough to think of themselves as part of the state.  It's more like:

"So they're gonna get ripped off?"
"Oh yeah, hugely."
"Sounds good, I'm glad I hired you Timmy."
"Not our money anyway."
"So are they ever gonna come even on this."
"Never."
"Awesome!"

I agree that this too is not a conversation you would likely here at an investment bank either.  However, you must understand that this is a one-time game.
Logged
Heq
Trouble
Pundit
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1391



« Reply #27 on: April 27, 2009, 13:16:56 EDT »

As in you just have to dodge the fallout for 4 years and you're good?
Logged

"No common man could believe such a thing, you'd have to be an intellectual to fall for anything as stupid as that."-Orwell
Current
Pundit
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3141


« Reply #28 on: April 27, 2009, 13:45:20 EDT »

As in you just have to dodge the fallout for 4 years and you're good?
Yes.  For many though it won't even be that long.

My understanding is that a lot of those employed in the various government bailout programs are only on short term contracts.

Those brought in from the private sector to run banks have bad incentives - make money for a couple of years then move out.  The politicians who direct them don't have much better incentives.  It is in their interest to use control of the banks to favour their supporters, by reducing interest rates for example.  It wouldn't matter too much if the banks had to be bailed out again as long as republican voters are the ones footing the bill.

Also, see this.
« Last Edit: April 27, 2009, 14:13:57 EDT by Current » Logged
Heq
Trouble
Pundit
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1391



« Reply #29 on: April 28, 2009, 03:43:55 EDT »

Where have I seen this before...

Oh, that's right, France.

Motherfucking France's motherfucking Louisiana, yea gods, that was terrible for everyone involved.

Eat money and crap wind.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/southland-times/features/2333399/Unlearned-history

It's a bit one sided, because I think the Lousiana issue -could- have been worked out and the Law trap isn't fully explained, but you get the core of it.
Logged

"No common man could believe such a thing, you'd have to be an intellectual to fall for anything as stupid as that."-Orwell
Pages: 1 [2] 3
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!