Quantcast

Democrats who so want to support their President are either delusional or, more likely, ignorant of basic economics. Let’s call them economically illiterate

Welshtaff 2012/07/30 22:52:00
My commentary today is about the economic ignorance gap between conservatives, capitalists and the dunces on the left.

Good old John Edwards was actually right about one thing. He said there were two Americas. Under Obama, the John Edwards fantasy has come true. The first America is represented by those who work in the government sector (who almost always support Obama and vote Democrat) and who think the private sector is doing just fine. The second America is represented by private-sector entrepreneurs, small-business owners and job creators (who almost always support conservative candidates and causes) who know the terrible truth: The economy is in horrible shape. The difference is due to economic ignorance. To save America, we must ignore those in the government sector and start listening to those in the private sector who are living at “ground zero.” They are the experts. They have “boots on the ground.” They understand firsthand what Obama’s policies have created: complete economic collapse.

The dirty secret rarely discussed or explained by the media is this gap between what Americans on the right think of the economy versus what those on the left think. See the polls. Democrats think the economy is in recovery with a bright future. Republicans think the economy is in horrible shape and worsening. How could two groups look at the same economy and see things so differently? Why don’t the media discuss this disparity? The simple truth is the media don’t like the answer.

The truth is Democrats who so want to support their President are either delusional or, more likely, ignorant of basic economics. Let’s call them economically illiterate. Quite frankly, it’s hard to blame them. Most Democrats I know work for big government, a big union, a big corporation or the media. They don’t sell anything. They don’t own a business or work on commission. They are paid for just showing up, never based on performance or profits. They don’t know about budgets, profits or losses. They get a safe paycheck every week and have a pretty much guaranteed job for life and a pension when they retire. They are nice people, but they don’t have a clue about what’s really going on, because they don’t sell things on Main Street. Nor do they have any of their own money at risk. Nor do they notice or care if their employer (the government) bleeds billions of dollars in losses. They can see only as far as their own weekly paycheck.

Most Democrats simply punch a clock and get paid week in and week out — the same as last year and five years ago and 10 years ago. As a matter of fact, they get automatic raises every year if they work for government. As long as they still have their job (which 99 percent of government employees do), their lives are pretty much untouched by the economic tragedy around us. No one is saying they are bad people. They aren’t. But they sure aren’t experts on how you create jobs or turn around an economy.

The private sector is a completely different story. Most of my friends who are Republican, conservative or Libertarian either work for themselves or get paid based on commission or performance (real estate brokers, stockbrokers, insurance brokers, mortgage brokers). They all know that the United States is in total economic collapse and headed for a Greece-like disaster. They know because their incomes are down by 20 percent, 30 percent, 50 percent and more. The private sector is devastated from coast to coast. We are all shell-shocked. We’ve never seen anything like this in our lifetimes.

So there you have it. The economic ignorance gap explained.

When you want to fix a clogged drain, you don’t call an economist; you call a plumber. When you want to solve a murder, call a police detective. Put out a fire? Call a fireman. You want to learn math? Call a teacher. You want bread? Call a baker. Now, I can’t do any of those things. So calling me would be a big mistake. That’s why we shouldn’t listen to plumbers or bakers or teachers or government employees (even the ones who are heroes) when we want to save our economy or create jobs. You call a job creator. Call a businessman or businesswoman. But don’t call Obama, a community organizer. Don’t call any Democratic politician. You’ll get a Great Depression. Look around.

The people who live in a government world have the same basic income year after year. They know zero about economics or the risks of using their own money to run a business on a budget (or go broke and lose everything). In their world, government takes care of you, hands you a check, protects your job for life and allows you to retire early on a $100,000 pension. Their economy is just fine. They are blissfully ignorant and protected from the harsh reality of the real world. Who protects them? Who is their guardian against the realities and harshness of life in the real world? Obama and Democratic politicians like him. No wonder they vote for Obama, idolize him and ignore reality to protect him. Their jobs and incomes depend on his benevolence and bribery.

The same goes for members of the media. New York Times columnist and economist Paul Krugman is Exhibit A. Paul Krugman — like most government employees — thinks the answer to the bankruptcy of America due to binge spending by government, is more binge spending by government. They give you Nobel Prizes for that? What’s the category: delusion? Like Krugman, the economic knowledge of Obama’s supporters comes from books. Unfortunately, the books were written by Karl Marx.

Then there’s the rest of us, struggling in Obama’s America. Those of us in the private sector, who risk our own money, run our own businesses or are paid based on performance are being decimated, watching as our life’s work is melting away. Forget about paying ourselves; we’re struggling to keep our doors open, make payroll and, now, pay for Obamacare. It’s that bad. Oh, did I forget to mention that we are being hounded and harassed by the IRS like never before in history. How can anyone run a business and create jobs in an environment like this?

How about some examples? A Wisconsin flag seller just filed for bankruptcy. In Obama’s economy a patriot can’t make a living selling America flags. Next we’ll hear that Bible sellers are going out of business, too. The ESPN Zone restaurant chain went out of business. Under Obama, you can’t make a living anymore selling cheap food and overpriced beer.

Even Vegas is in trouble. The only casinos making money are those whose revenues are mostly from Macao. Their Vegas operations are dying, but they make so much money in China it doesn’t matter anymore.

And then there’s the NFL. The richest sport in the world can’t fill stadium seats anymore. Watch any sports event nowadays, and you’ll see wide swaths of empty seats. You can’t sell anything in Obama’s America — not even tickets to popular sports events.

Think these are isolated examples? Last week we heard that U.S. manufacturing activity plummeted to the lowest level in 3 years. Then, a few days ago, we got another horrendous jobs report with only 80,000 jobs created in the whole country. This all proves what I’ve been saying for 3 1/2 years: Obama’s toxic ideas have produced a slow-motion economic collapse. Just like in Europe, add together a toxic stew of big taxes, big spending, demonization of business owners, too many government rules and regulations, union intimidation, IRS intimidation, billions wasted on green energy, billions more on high speed rail that no one wants to ride and lawyers trying to sue us all out of business (if the unions, government regulations and IRS haven’t already succeeded), and you get economic disaster. It’s all happening right now, right in front of our eyes. It’s pretty simple to connect the dots.

So the economic ignorance gap tells it all. Anyone who makes a living by selling something, anything at all, is in deep trouble. They see an ever worsening disaster under Obama — up close and personal. They fear for the survival of their businesses and they are terrified for the future of America. These are the people we ought to be listening to. The private sector is in distress. We see and feel this Obama Great Depression deepening.

The Democrats who tell pollsters “everything is fine” may be nice people, but they are economically ignorant. Dunces. Put them in the corner with a dunce hat. Worse, their gravy train is based on stealing money from Peter (taxpayers) to pay Paul (themselves). So they aren’t just ignorant; they are biased. They have a rooting interest for an economy based on spending more so their gravy train continues. No wonder they think things are just fine.

But soon, when government announces there is no money to keep paying for 21 million government employees or the bloated pensions of millions of retired government employees, their story will change radically.

Don’t believe me? Just ask a government employee in Greece what the end feels like. Obama’s supporters will soon get a dose of economic reality.

You!
Add Photos & Videos

Top Opinion

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest
Opinions

  • Welshtaff 2012/08/02 11:35:35
    Welshtaff
    Who owns America? Hint: It's not China

    Truth is elusive. But it's a good thing we have math.

    Our friends at Business Insider know this, and put those two principles to work today in this excellent and highly informative little slideshow, made even more timely by the ongoing talks in Washington, D.C. aimed at staving off a U.S. debt default.

    Here's the big idea:

    Many people — politicians and pundits alike — prattle on that China and, to a lesser extent Japan, own most of America's $14.3 trillion in government debt.

    But there's one little problem with that conventional wisdom: it's just not true. While the Chinese, Japanese and plenty of other foreigners own substantial amounts, it's really Americans who hold most of America's debt.

    Here's a quick and fascinating breakdown by total amount held and percentage of total U.S. debt, according to Business Insider:


    •Hong Kong: $121.9 billion (0.9 percent)
    •Caribbean banking centers: $148.3 (1 percent)
    •Taiwan: $153.4 billion (1.1 percent)
    •Brazil: $211.4 billion (1.5 percent)
    •Oil exporting countries: $229.8 billion (1.6 percent)
    •Mutual funds: $300.5 billion (2 percent)
    •Commercial banks: $301.8 billion (2.1 percent)
    •State, local and federal retirement funds: $320.9 billion (2.2 percent)
    •Money market mutual ...











    Who owns America? Hint: It's not China

    Truth is elusive. But it's a good thing we have math.

    Our friends at Business Insider know this, and put those two principles to work today in this excellent and highly informative little slideshow, made even more timely by the ongoing talks in Washington, D.C. aimed at staving off a U.S. debt default.

    Here's the big idea:

    Many people — politicians and pundits alike — prattle on that China and, to a lesser extent Japan, own most of America's $14.3 trillion in government debt.

    But there's one little problem with that conventional wisdom: it's just not true. While the Chinese, Japanese and plenty of other foreigners own substantial amounts, it's really Americans who hold most of America's debt.

    Here's a quick and fascinating breakdown by total amount held and percentage of total U.S. debt, according to Business Insider:


    •Hong Kong: $121.9 billion (0.9 percent)
    •Caribbean banking centers: $148.3 (1 percent)
    •Taiwan: $153.4 billion (1.1 percent)
    •Brazil: $211.4 billion (1.5 percent)
    •Oil exporting countries: $229.8 billion (1.6 percent)
    •Mutual funds: $300.5 billion (2 percent)
    •Commercial banks: $301.8 billion (2.1 percent)
    •State, local and federal retirement funds: $320.9 billion (2.2 percent)
    •Money market mutual funds: $337.7 billion (2.4 percent)
    •United Kingdom: $346.5 billion (2.4 percent)
    •Private pension funds: $504.7 billion (3.5 percent)
    •State and local governments: $506.1 billion (3.5 percent)
    •Japan: $912.4 billion (6.4 percent)
    •U.S. households: $959.4 billion (6.6 percent)
    •China: $1.16 trillion (8 percent)
    •The U.S. Treasury: $1.63 trillion (11.3 percent)
    •Social Security trust fund: $2.67 trillion (19 percent)

    So America owes foreigners about $4.5 trillion in debt. But America owes America $9.8 trillion.

    For a smart take on how President Obama and House Republicans should end gridlock over debt and deficits,
    (more)
  • Devil's Advocate 2012/07/31 19:13:54
    Devil's Advocate
    I am pro-Obama and I have extensive formal academic training in economics. The real people who are 'economically ignorant' are the people who believe national leaders have the power to truly combat global crises in international, inter-dependent markets.
    Heres the reality-
    1. Chinas artificial construction boom is ending and its exports are falling.
    2. The Eurozone is in recession and is crippled by the circular problem of rising yields on sovereign debt bonds that they cannot afford because they are not raising the revenue to stimulate the economy because then they wouldnt be able to afford the payments for the sovereign debt yields.
    3. Banks are not lending because they are riddled with toxic assets in the form of derivative products laced with defaulted debts.
    4. There is a chronic lack of consumer demand in the economy because unemployment is high, wages are stagnant and not keeping pace with inflation. This is stopping banks from lending.
    5. The troublesome Eurozone economies are locked into an uncompetitive currency union with the only two capital account surplus holders in Europe and cannot trade their way out of recession.
    6. Banks are being flooded with reserve bonds to try to boost liquidity whilst the problem lies in the ratio between fractional reserves and the a...


    I am pro-Obama and I have extensive formal academic training in economics. The real people who are 'economically ignorant' are the people who believe national leaders have the power to truly combat global crises in international, inter-dependent markets.
    Heres the reality-
    1. Chinas artificial construction boom is ending and its exports are falling.
    2. The Eurozone is in recession and is crippled by the circular problem of rising yields on sovereign debt bonds that they cannot afford because they are not raising the revenue to stimulate the economy because then they wouldnt be able to afford the payments for the sovereign debt yields.
    3. Banks are not lending because they are riddled with toxic assets in the form of derivative products laced with defaulted debts.
    4. There is a chronic lack of consumer demand in the economy because unemployment is high, wages are stagnant and not keeping pace with inflation. This is stopping banks from lending.
    5. The troublesome Eurozone economies are locked into an uncompetitive currency union with the only two capital account surplus holders in Europe and cannot trade their way out of recession.
    6. Banks are being flooded with reserve bonds to try to boost liquidity whilst the problem lies in the ratio between fractional reserves and the assets used to finance inter-bank lending.

    Anyone who thinks Obama has the power to change this is insane. Anyone who thinks McCain or Romney or Clinton or any other living soul could have made a better deal of this is insane. These are global, structural problems. Elect Romney and I will tell you today the result- faster rising unemployment, a deficit that will still be enormous even if he tries to roll back spending (because you cannot just get rid of a deficit by cutting spending but, then again, few people are aware of the intricacies of budgeting) as his borrowing requirement will still exceed spending. There is a chance that GDP will grow, as he will be even more of a slave to Wall Street as Obama has been, but it will be masked by zero productivity gains and no productive capacity gains.
    The UK has a conservative government right now that is currently going down the path of expenditure cuts (which is an interest rate-based, financial sector-centric solution to a demand/exports-based problem), tax rises for the poor and tax cuts for the rich and the economy has contracted further and further. It will not fix the problem. People need to face the reality that we are in for a BAD few decades.... NO matter what.
    (more)
  • Lady Whitewolf 2012/07/31 10:55:06
    Lady Whitewolf
    +2
    So, how is THROWING MORE MONEY AT THE WEALTHY workin' out for ya?
  • shadow76 2012/07/31 06:04:22
    shadow76
    +1
    Works for me!
  • Warren - Novus Ordo Seclorum 2012/07/31 02:32:53
    Warren - Novus Ordo Seclorum
    +1
    Facts are stubborn things for right wing ideologues.
    economists republican
  • john Kills 2012/07/31 01:57:29
    john Kills
    +1
    Most people are too busy watching ballgames, jerry springer, family guy, playing video games to learn a damn thing about politics. Most people vote for their party of choice come hell or high water. Until these people wake up, (people on both sides) thing will continue to get worse. Blind loyalty to any party is ignorant.
  • Kaleokualoha 2012/07/31 01:46:17 (edited)
    Kaleokualoha
    +5
    "Economically illiterate" applies to those who consider Obama to be a socialist. As a matter of fact, actual socialists, and many progressives, criticize Obama's policies as being "Bush-lite"!

    Just as Chicken Little started a "sky is falling" hysteria based on a falling acorn, so too are various critics pushing a "socialist" or "Marxist" Obama hysteria based on Obama's economic policies. Not only do they conveniently forget that the 2008 bailout was initiated by the Bush administration, but they also seem to have forgotten some basics from Econ 101. They could easily avoid such non sequitur nonsense by following the evidence instead of jumping to conclusions.

    According to dictionary.com, socialism is "a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole. In Marxist theory, it is the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles."

    Please note that it is the stage FOLLOWING capitalism. Capitalism has many forms in a mixed economy, with public (collective) ownership of various enterprises based upon economic conditions. Limited public ow...















    "Economically illiterate" applies to those who consider Obama to be a socialist. As a matter of fact, actual socialists, and many progressives, criticize Obama's policies as being "Bush-lite"!

    Just as Chicken Little started a "sky is falling" hysteria based on a falling acorn, so too are various critics pushing a "socialist" or "Marxist" Obama hysteria based on Obama's economic policies. Not only do they conveniently forget that the 2008 bailout was initiated by the Bush administration, but they also seem to have forgotten some basics from Econ 101. They could easily avoid such non sequitur nonsense by following the evidence instead of jumping to conclusions.

    According to dictionary.com, socialism is "a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole. In Marxist theory, it is the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles."

    Please note that it is the stage FOLLOWING capitalism. Capitalism has many forms in a mixed economy, with public (collective) ownership of various enterprises based upon economic conditions. Limited public ownership does not comprise Marxist socialism, which requires complete public ownership. When controlled by a police state, however, limited public ownership may become fascism ("national socialism"), Marxist socialism, or even "perfect implementation of collectivist principles." Limited public ownership occurs at virtually every point on the mixed economy spectrum.

    Every advocate of greater government economic control might be called a "socialist," but none are true socialists unless they advocate the complete elimination of private enterprise, which requires the complete replacement of capitalism with collectivism. True (laissez-faire) capitalism means zero government control of private enterprise, which is economic anarchy. Neither of these extremes works in the long run. Every successful economy is a mixed economy, existing somewhere on a spectrum between both extremes. Every successful economy is part capitalist and part socialist. They all contain a mix of private and public ownership, and they all have some government control of private enterprise. The only relevant question is "WHERE on this spectrum can we achieve the greatest success?" The rise of Asian economies, with their varying degrees of centralized planning, proves that economic planning helps economic development.

    Both laissez faire capitalism and true communism are artificial constructs, as impossible to sustain as cold fusion. Every successful society requires private enterprise regulated by public policy, regardless of Ayn Rand's fantasies. Extremists on either fringe are equally delusional. In some ways regulation is a necessary evil like body fat: too much or too little are both lethal. The normal tendency is to add layers with age. The challenge is to find the level that will produce the optimum outcome, all things considered.

    Unless someone advocates the complete replacement of capitalism with collectivism, they do not truly advocate socialism or communism. To accuse them of either, when they have not explicitly advocated as much themselves, suggests either unfamiliarity with mixed economies or intellectual dishonesty. Even George W. Bush and John McCain were accused of advocating socialism based upon their support of 2008 bailout legislation.

    The bottom line is simple. If you consider any variation of a mixed economy, including ANY public ownership or regulation of industry to be "socialism," then the United States and ALL other economies are "socialist." The debate is over, because by that definition we have been "socialist" since the 18th century. If you only consider complete collectivism to be "socialism," according to Marxist theory, then no successful economy is actually "socialist." The closest to a Marxist socialist economy is the economic basket case, North Korea. If you consider socialism to occur at some other point on the spectrum between unregulated capitalism and Marxist socialism, then any such point would be arbitrary.

    To accuse a mixed economy advocate of being a socialist or communist suggests that you believe that ANY degree of government regulation qualifies as "socialism," or that you believe that any regulation beyond an indefinite "trigger point" qualifies as "socialism,", and that YOU get to set the trigger point. The "trigger point" explanation reminds me of the egocentric explorer who says that anyone who explores farther into dangerous territory is a fool, but anyone who doesn’t explore as far as he does is a coward. His arrogance presumes that his own boundaries are common standards.

    Marxist "socialism," in contrast to European "democratic socialism," requires collective ownership of the means of production in lieu of capitalism. That is the death of private enterprise. We may or may not be on a path to collectivism, just as a dating couple may or may not be on a path to pregnancy. Traveling on a path in any direction does not imply any specific goal. For example, traveling on Interstate 10 does not imply that either coast is the goal.

    "Direction" is one thing. "Goal" is another. All mixed economies exist at some point in the spectrum between the fatal terminuses of unregulated capitalism and true socialism. In most Marxist states, however, capitalism reappeared as people recognized the lethal consequences of such extremes. Russia, China and other communist nations now recognize the virtue of mixed economies. They learned the hard way.

    I await empirical evidence, instead of specious speculation, that Obama wants to eliminate capitalism by moving to that extreme. To say Obama advocates the goal of socialism, based upon his movement on the spectrum instead of being based on his explicit advocacy, is to create a straw man. It is intellectually dishonest and unworthy of serious debate.
    (more)
  • Lady Wh... Kaleoku... 2012/07/31 10:56:06
    Lady Whitewolf
    +2
    WELL SAID
  • HOMBRE 2012/07/31 00:32:34
    HOMBRE
    +1
    New prediction if Obama gets in shutting down all the coal plants creating electricity. Brown outs to black outs. USA does not have any form of industry to create enough electricity to run country.Romney promised he would put coal mines back to work open all government land for oil and gas drilling.People better wake up. I hope Romney has a chance in the debates to bring this up?
  • Patriot Unit 2012/07/31 00:29:03
    Patriot Unit
    +1
    I would say both.
  • Nancy~PWCM~JLA~POTL 2012/07/31 00:28:20
    Nancy~PWCM~JLA~POTL
    +2
    the private sector needs to revitalize and government needs to back off. People cannot become productive with all the regulations introduced by this regime. Too much!
  • Theresa 2012/07/30 23:52:36
    Theresa
    +2
    It is interesting that there is a such a lack of knowing simple Economics in this nation.
  • Mr. Smith 2012/07/30 23:47:45
    Mr. Smith
    +1
    They're either ignorant or completely retarded......and in rare occasions, it's both!
  • Red Branch 2012/07/30 23:41:25
    Red Branch
    +1
    Why stop with economics when considering their delusions or ignorance?
  • dubbie 2012/07/30 23:39:52
    dubbie
    +3
    Thats why there is a jump in gun sales , When the handouts stop coming ,They`ll be coming
  • Mr. T dubbie 2012/07/31 00:13:13
    Mr. T
    +2
    Exactly. When the "free stuffs" ends, they will want to take it from those who have it.
  • sobersouljah 2012/07/30 23:16:38 (edited)
    sobersouljah
    +2
    ~~~"...dunces on the left."~~~

    ~~~"...ignorant of basic economics..."~~~



    Everything about "Modern" liberalism is a lie - even the name.
  • texasred 2012/07/30 23:09:58
    texasred
    +3
    Their economic illiteracy makes them delusional. Or maybe it's because they're delusional that they are economically illiterate. Either way, it's we the people who end up paying.
  • Icono1 2012/07/30 23:08:12
    Icono1
    +2
    FTA
    "The private sector is in distress."

    Nuff said.
  • seadog6608PWCM 2012/07/30 23:07:01
  • soberso... seadog6... 2012/07/30 23:27:43
  • doofiegirl POTL~PWCM~JLA 2012/07/30 23:04:22
    doofiegirl  POTL~PWCM~JLA
    +6
    Th problem here is that we (the ordinary citizen) will be hurt first, and the worst.
  • Elleryqueen 2012/07/30 22:55:10
    Elleryqueen
    +5
    Economically illiterate? How about in many cases just plain illiterate.

News & Politics

2013/06/20 01:26:51

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals