NationStates Jolt Archive

http://img161.imageshack.us/img161/8071/5819americaneagleandflawa4.jpg

Is McCain well versed enough in economics to become President?

When asked if he beleives the federal reserve has been cutting interest rates aggresively enough, McCain, after stumbling and admitting he doesn't have the necessary information to give a response on this, blurted out that he wishes interest rates were 0%.

McCain's phrase ultimately makes no sense because he misunderstands how the market for loanable funds works. It is little different than any other market in that it involves scarce resources. By way of analogy, it'd make no sense in a market where resources are scarce, like the shoe market, to say the price of shoes should be zero, as this obliterate most incentives to produce them (and would lead to losses for existing produced shoes).

Likewise, in the market for loanable funds the interest rate is the price of loanable funds. If it were zero there would be no incentive to save, and no pool of funding for investors and other borrowers to draw from. There would be every incentive to borrow and no incentive to save.

So just as McCain would not dare to utter anything so imbecile in the case of the shoe market, he shouldn't be saying something so ignorant about interest rates, although he lacks the formation to see his error...


Also, McCain showed his ignorance during the Florida debates when Ron Paul asked him an economic question, which McCain clearly avoided:

REP. PAUL: My—my question is for Senator McCain. This is an economic question that I wanted to ask. It has to do with the President's Working Group on Financial Markets. I'd like to know what your opinion is of this and whether you would keep it in place, what their role would be, or you would get rid of this group. And if you kept the group, would you make sure we would see some sunlight and know what they're doing and how they're being involved in our markets?

SEN. MCCAIN: Well, obviously we'd like to see more sunshine. But I as president, as every other president, rely primarily on my secretary of the Treasury, on my Council of Economic Advisers, on the head of that. I would rely on the circle that I have developed over many years of people like Jack Kemp, Phil Gramm, Warren Rudman, Pete Peterson, and the Concord Group. I have a process of leadership, Ron, that is sort of an inclusive one that I have developed, a circle of acquaintances and people that are supporters and friends of mine who I have worked with for many, many years.

REP. PAUL: So you'd get rid of the group?

SEN. MCCAIN: You remember back in 1982 when Phil Gramm—Phil Gramm and Warren Rudman and Gramm-Latta and all of those people got the first real tax cuts done, the real—first real restraints in taxes. I was there. You were there. And I rely on those people to a much larger degree than any, quote, "formal" organization, although the secretary of Treasury is obviously one of the key and important posts that I would have.



Did McCain say economics isn't his strength? Stories say so
NBC's Tim Russert, to Sen. John McCain during last night's Republican presidential debate: "You have said repeatedly, quote, 'I know a lot less about economics than I do about military and foreign policy issues. I still need to be educated.' Is it a problem for your campaign that the economy is now the most important issue, one that by your own acknowledgment you're not well versed on?"

McCain: "Actually, I don't know where you got that quote from. I'm very well versed in economics. I was there at the Reagan revolution. I was there when we enacted the first -- or just after we enacted the first tax cuts and the restraints on spending. I was chairman of the Commerce Committee in the United States Senate, which addresses virtually every major economic issue that affects the United States of America. I'm very well versed on economics."

So where did Russert get that quote?

Perhaps from The Wall Street Journal, which on Nov. 26, 2005, published this quote from an interview with McCain: "I'm going to be honest: I know a lot less about economics than I do about military and foreign policy issues. I still need to be educated."

Or maybe the Boston Globe's Political Intelligence blog, which last Dec. 18 published this quote from McCain: "The issue of economics is not something I've understood as well as I should. ... I've got Greenspan's book."

Some short youtube clips showing McCain's economic blunders:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XazpaYwFKd8&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rJ1OB2iLxcY

If I have a Doctorate in Linguistics and a Baccalaureate in Psychology, that would suggest that I know considerably less of psychology than linguistics. But does it mean that I am not well-versed in the area?

I'm rather suspicious of that line of argument.

But McCain does probably know less than he should about economics. As is the case with most of our elected officials, so far as I can tell.

By way of analogy, it'd make no sense in a market where resources are scarce, like the shoe market, to say the price of shoes should be zero

unless we were proposing to abolish market exchange...

As mentioned before, NONE of the candidates is truly qualified to be president of the USA. Arguably none of the past presidents was.

So let us hope they have good advisers. And are decent and intelligent persons.

Nice poll options.

Is McCain well versed enough in economics to become President?


At least he doesn't think that eliminating the IRS will solve all tax problems :rolleyes:

I like his idea of hiring experienced experts in the economy to be his advisors. Since I doubt any of the presidential candidates are as experienced as they are.

No candidate knows everything about each important issue, such as Obama and foreign policy. I just trust that they will consult with the right people.

At least he doesn't think that eliminating the IRS will solve all tax problems :rolleyes:

Or favour a return to the Gold Standard.

http://img161.imageshack.us/img161/8071/5819americaneagleandflawa4.jpg
I am trying to figure what is the relation between your OP and your Big picture of a flag+eagle..

is there any possible relation/relevance ???

Meh. If he was campaigning on the basis of anything other than letting other people take care of economic issues it might be a problem, but as it stands, he doesn't need to demonstrate competency in that particular area. All he needs to know is who to ask.

Besides, economic theory needs a good shakeup anyway.

Or favour a return to the Gold Standard.

Or allowing the states to use their own currencies. (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d096:h.r.3931:)

I am trying to figure what the relation of your OP and your Big picture of a flag+eagle"This has been a Streaming Freedom Broadcast"?

http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a205/ulteriormotives/wywsonly1.jpg

Or allowing the states to use their own currencies. (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d096:h.r.3931:)Wow. Ron Paul values states' rights over sensiblie economics...

Or favour a return to the Gold Standard.

Instead of "let us pretend our money is worth something, as long as you do not ask what" ?

I am trying to figure what the relation of your OP and your Big picture of a flag+eagle

Because it's RON PAUL! LIBERTY!

"But what about his racist stances and insane policies?"

QUIET! LIBERTY!


Wow, McCain admitted he had a weakness. Good, perhaps that'll be incentive to hire competant advisors and not simpering yes-men if he gets elected.

I am trying to figure what the relation of your OP and your Big picture of a flag+eagle

It's because he's one of those uber-nationalistically jingoistic over-patriots, the ones that disgust me.

And anyway, what's wrong with saying you'd appoint/hire advisers to help you with things you're not entirely familiar with? That's a splendid idea in a job like the Presidency, especially since the job requires so much knowledge and so many skills that it's simply not POSSIBLE to know everything in sufficient detail.

What a lame poll...

I don't see how hiring a puppet (at least in terms of economic issues) is a good idea. You want to know what you are voting for!American's don't vote for the President though, that's up to the electoral college.

TAI?

Name me one candidate that is well versed in economics?

I don't see how hiring a puppet (at least in terms of economic issues) is a good idea. You want to know what you are voting for!

It doesn't matter what he knows. It matters the staff he hires to know that stuff......

Or allowing the states to use their own currencies. (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d096:h.r.3931:)

Oh yeah, that's a good idea :rolleyes: :headbang:

Or allowing the states to use their own currencies. (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d096:h.r.3931:)

Woot! Bankrupting nearly the entire population of the US ftw!

If I have a Doctorate in Linguistics and a Baccalaureate in Psychology, that would suggest that I know considerably less of psychology than linguistics. But does it mean that I am not well-versed in the area?

I'm rather suspicious of that line of argument.

But McCain does probably know less than he should about economics. As is the case with most of our elected officials, so far as I can tell.

If you did, I would ask you to help me understand the poll connected to this thread.

Instead of "let us pretend our money is worth something, as long as you do not ask what" ?

I wasn't aware that anyone was pretending what the value of their currency is. At least with fiat currency the value of money is linked to the supply and demand for it and backed by the government/central banks promise to manage the currency properly. You know, so when a country does something unwise like running up an $800billion trade deficit it gets reflected in the value of the currency rather than some arbitrary metal.

I wasn't aware that anyone was pretending what the value of their currency is.

It is called "exchange rates". A novel principle, I know.

You know, so when a country does something unwise like running up an $800billion trade deficit it gets reflected in the value of the currency rather than some arbitrary metal.

So.. would it be correct to state that currently the US is owned by other countries ?
Or, more specifically, that its labourers are.

People who take this seriously should get a life ;)

Oh yeah, and RP's band of Austrian economics is much better than McCain's non-knowledge, not by much... Both support notions of bourgeois wage-slavery and people not having self-determination over the products of their labor, because when your boss takes at least 90% of the productive capacity of your labor, and you barely get the rest in the form of a wage, that is really 'free'. Libertarians love to whinge about taxes, but the biggest leeching parasite are the bourgeois.

If you did, I would ask you to help me understand the poll connected to this thread.

Um, I don't need a Doctorate in Linguistics for that, mate. TAI set up the poll so that he could see how the votes might split along party lines, and thoughtfully took into account that many people here don't like either party by saying, "If I had to pick..." rather than adding a separate option for people who either hate both parties or don't actually care.

NONE of the candidates is truly qualified to be president of the USA. Arguably none of the past presidents was.

This is something a lot of people miss- no one can be truly qualified at being president unless one has prior experience. Even then, experience in office does not necessarily lead to a good presidency. (i wonder who that brings to mind...)
Its not a question of being truly qualified but of being the most qualified and having the best track record in other areas of government and life in general.

Umm also, I believe the point is that he does have enough knowledge to be President, that is to be a figurehead while the bourgeois run the country.

0% interest rates aren't that unusual, actually. When adjusted for inflation, the Federal Funds Rate has sometimes been negative, in fact (and unfortunately.)

TAI?

Name me one candidate that is well versed in economics?


DR RON PAUL OMG!!!!:headbang:

DR RON PAUL OMG!!!!:headbang:

So well versed that he's tried twice to bankrupt us all!

I'm just gonna sit back and laugh at all the people using this thread to take shots at Dr. Paul.

Stop derailing this thread....it's obviously about McCain and his lack of understanding of economics, and if he has a good enough understanding to become President...it has NOTHING to do with Dr. Paul and Paul is only mentioned as part of a conversation with McCain in which McCain showed his lack of knowledge of economics.

If you want to make another thread about Paul's (correct) economic views, do so. This is not the place. Get back on track or I'll assume that you all are too junior enough to understand the economics in discussion and possibly report a thread-jacking to the mods.



Oh, and thank you HotRodia. :)

I didn't realize it was such a complex issue that people would complain about. :rolleyes:
Um, I don't need a Doctorate in Linguistics for that, mate. TAI set up the poll so that he could see how the votes might split along party lines, and thoughtfully took into account that many people here don't like either party by saying, "If I had to pick..." rather than adding a separate option for people who either hate both parties or don't actually care.

I'll give McCain a basic rundown of what capitalist economics entails:

Drive down wages.
Drive down conditions.
Overproduce.
Drive down wages.
Drive down conditions.
Overproduce.

Rinse. Lather. Repeat.

Click Stand;13413474']No candidate knows everything about each important issue, such as Obama and foreign policy. I just trust that they will consult with the right people.

But see, the current debate topic right now isn't just any old issue....the debates right now are about either the war or the economy, which a current favor towards the economy...to come to a debate on the economy without understanding economics, is like to come to a debate on whether or not we should be in Iraq, and not know what is going on in Iraq.....

I'll give McCain a basic rundown of what capitalist economics entails:

Drive down wages.
Drive down conditions.
Overproduce.
Drive down wages.
Drive down conditions.
Overproduce.

Rinse. Lather. Repeat.

I suggest you read up on a certain Mr. Ford and Mr. Smith. Both advocated capitalism, both advocated the opposite of step 1 at the very least, possibly step 2, and what is possibly wrong with step 3?

Psst... as usual, your blanket and stupid statements are making the leftists reconsider their positions as they see the folly in engaging in conversation with people like you who have a single-track mind and can't think of anything else but a stupidly outdated Proletarian versus Bourgeouis

0% interest rates aren't that unusual, actually. When adjusted for inflation, the Federal Funds Rate has sometimes been negative, in fact (and unfortunately.)
Looks like they're heading that way right now. :rolleyes:

Bunch of idiots. Bernanke is just doing precisely the same thing as Greenspan. Except this time lots of people know better than to pretend that it's some sort of economic genius.

And I used to think so well of him. :(

Looks like they're heading that way right now. :rolleyes:

Bunch of idiots. Bernanke is just doing precisely the same thing as Greenspan. Except this time lots of people know better than to pretend that it's some sort of economic genius.

And I used to think so well of him. :(

What do you think of all this? *dealing with McCain and what I said in the original post*

At least he doesn't think that eliminating the IRS will solve all tax problems :rolleyes:

QFT

What do you think of all this? *dealing with McCain and what I said in the original post*
I think that the President's influence over the economy is vastly overrated. He'll have a host of staffers who'll know a lot more than he does, and even they can at best come up with a "stimulus package" if times aren't great and make up parts of speeches claiming credit if they are. He can pick up the rest by doing a bit of catch-up studying.

The President has just two functions: foreign policy and setting a general agenda on domestic issues. The rest is handled by his administration and Congress.

How much does the president affect American economics anyway? I thought that congress was largely in charge of such things.

Nobody really expects that Republicans will ever be fiscally responsible again....do they?

Um, I don't need a Doctorate in Linguistics for that, mate. TAI set up the poll so that he could see how the votes might split along party lines, and thoughtfully took into account that many people here don't like either party by saying, "If I had to pick..." rather than adding a separate option for people who either hate both parties or don't actually care.

AHA! I get it now. Sorry, the missing "and" or other article to let me know I was being given an option to choose a yes/no AND which party I most closely identify with IF I had to choose. Thanks. I'll vote now.

How's this:

Probably: If I had to pick, I'd cry.

Looks like they're heading that way right now. :rolleyes:

Well, if we have 4% inflation like we did in December, then the real interest rate will be -1% (since the FFR is at 3% right now.) So John McCain will be REALLY happy now!

I'm just curious as to how many people know what the President's Working Group on Financial Markets is off the top of their head? Why is the President's Working Group on Financial Markets so important that every candidate should be familiar with it immediately?

I'm also curious as to why anyone other than a conspiracy theorist would ask the question that Ron Paul did about the President's Working Group on Financial Markets.

You've piqued my interest. Please, enlighten me.

[Also, McCain showed his ignorance during the Florida debates when Ron Paul asked him an economic question, which McCain clearly avoided:


I'm just curious as to how many people know what the President's Working Group on Financial Markets is off the top of their head? Why is the President's Working Group on Financial Markets so important that every candidate should be familiar with it immediately?

I'm also curious as to why anyone other than a conspiracy theorist would ask the question that Ron Paul did about the President's Working Group on Financial Markets.

0% interest rates aren't that unusual, actually. When adjusted for inflation, the Federal Funds Rate has sometimes been negative, in fact (and unfortunately.)
Ok, but that's hardly something to be happy about...McCain said he "wishes interest rates were 0%", and not...."unfortunatly, 0% interest rates aren't that unusual....

Ok, but that's hardly something to be happy about...McCain said he "wishes interest rates were 0%", and not...."unfortunatly, 0% interest rates aren't that unusual....

Oh, I wasn't approving what Mr. McCain said. I just said that his destructive fantasy actually comes true frequently.