Help me rebutt this asshole who crafted this Letter to the Editor

[The Blue Knight]

http://www.marionstar.com/news/stories/20040922/opinion/1283456.html

He claims the economy is good for America/Ohio in general. I'm no economist, and frankly, it's probably my weakest point politically.

I need some facts to rebutt this guy and prove that America's economy isn't as good as he's claiming it to be and such.

[RobertSeattle]

1. Find the JohnKerry.com article that obliterates the 1996=2004 GOP meme

[skypilot]

2. It's too long.

I can't focus that long on Repub nonsense. But I did scroll down and notice the phrase "forgery of the truth". Interesting. So, it's the "truth" but it's been "forged". So is it still the truth? Kind of a brain-teaser if you ask me.

[lazarus]

4. "forgery of the truth"?

Sounds like something I heard (through sources) out of the OJ Simpson prosecution team: Mark Furman framed a guilty man.

Sigh.

[skypilot]

9. Sounds like "Memogate"

What was in the memos was true but the memos were "forgeries".

[King Coal]

3. Here you go.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=2378828&mesg_id=2378828

[glitch]

6. most excellent article - I just kicked that thread - thanks for posting nt

[never cry wolf]

8. Yup, I was just gonna post that one....n/t

[silverlib]

5. A start

Here's to start - I just went to www.mamma.com and typed in "household wealth" - This guy is nuts.

http://www.keepmedia.com/ShowItemDetails.do?itemID=416158&extID=10043&data=household_wealth

snip - For the past three years, the U.S. has enjoyed an almost unprecedented boom in productivity. Yet these gains have been distributed unevenly. Household net worth has reached an all-time high, surpassing even the bubble-influenced peak of early 2000. That has mainly benefited the top half of families, who own virtually all of the country's assets such as stocks, bonds, and homes.

Meanwhile, high unemployment and glacial job growth have left many workers, especially at the bottom end, suffering. The share of the economic pie going to wages and salaries has plummeted to just over 50%, its lowest... snip

[MostlyLurks]

7. I'm weak on the economy too BUT

1. The statement "Didn't a Dutch software company move a bunch of jobs from Marion to Columbus recently?" seems pretty ridiculous as a prop re: "in-sourcing", given that Marion and CMH are in the same state. Had the company moved from Europe to CMH, that'd be something. Not moving from Marion to CMH - that's churn.

2. "You may not personally be participating in this nationwide boom because of local economic conditions here in Ohio." So I should vote for Bush because the economy is great elsewhere? Christ, why doesn't Bush just run on the economic record of fucking Denmark then ("Denmark" used as a blank- placeholder for any prosperous country. I know nothing of Denmark.)? Actually, the writer makes it pretty clear at points later, that this is exactly his logic. "I'm doing pretty well..." and "Anybody who paints a bleak picture is lying...".

ADDITIONALLY, his logic is completely perverse: if you're doing OK or if you're doing badly, that's irrelevant to how you should vote because the economy as a whole is good. If he truly believe that, then this asshat MUST have voted for Clinton, regardless of his personal situation at the time, because the economy was in good shape generally? Yeah, didn't think so.

ADDITIONALLY "If so, I recommend you switch your membership to The Committee to Bury Ohio Legislators Up To Their Necks In Ant Hills." Ohio is largely Republican controlled and our asshat Guv is a Repub. So pardon the hell out of me if I start voting the shits out from the top down.

3. "... the reality is that Ohio's jobs are being outsourced more to other states than to other countries." But, but, but you just told me that I can't use outsourcing as a foundation for my choice against Bush/for Kerry.

4. "Yes we have a federal deficit, but revenues are not the problem, undisciplined spending is." The Congress is Republ controlled, and they dictate spending. The Pres is Repub controlled and he requests spending measures. So if he's really upset about "undisciplined spending" he MUST vote Democrat because they haven't had control over spending. Additionally, Bush is the only President to enact and uphold tax cuts in war time. Man, this guy is just a fucking dunce.

5. " Neither candidate sounds intent on imposing fiscal discipline, so this issue is a wash." That's a sound argument: "neither guy seems right, so I'll just go with the one who has proven he'll run this country into the ground, as opposed to the one who hasn't."

6. "find it highly amusing that neither the Communist Party USA nor the Socialist Party USA are fielding candidates this year - both parties have officially endorsed Kerry. I won't discuss Communist or Socialist sociopolitical ideologies right now, but economies under these two systems tend to look like the Ford Pinto's safety record. Ever notice that Kerry does not mention these endorsements on the campaign trail?" Hey, anybody here got a line on the al Quaeda endorsement(s) that have been given to Bush? The ones where they call him their best tool for recruitment? I wonder why Bush never mentions those?

7. "But the next time you hear anybody painting a bleak picture - well, I won't use the word "lying" because of its harsh connotations - let's say that they are presenting a forgery of the truth." Ah, I see. So when I meet somebody who tells me they lost their job, can't pay for their house, etc. they MUST be lying because this douchebag is doing OK, so that means we're all doing OK.

8. "Guy Schlicting is a longtime resident of Marion, is a graduate of River Valley High School, Marion Technical College and The Ohio State University. He is a software engineer." Well, I take it all back. He certainly has the gravitas to spout off on the economy, something that even Nobel winners disagree about.

Maybe some of that will help you. Don't know if I'd use #8, because it's ad hominem and reduces the argument, but this guy pissed me off. By the way, I'm in Columbus.

Mostly.

[funnymanpants]

10. Very stupid logic

The author starts off with the normal gratituos ad homenim (sp?) attacks on those who don't agree with him. I have yet to see many rational supporters of Kerry, he states.

That is a very poor argument. It can't be proven or disproven, and it is just a way to stack the deck.

Now to the substance of the arguemnt:


"Let's talk about jobs. Kerry has bandied about numbers like 3 million jobs lost, then it was 1.5 million, then it was 2 million, then 1.5 million again. Now it's more jobs lost than any president since Herbert Hoover (never mind that the labor force has tripled since then.) The outsourcing of jobs overseas is a common punching bag, but cleverly omitted is the fact that the U.S. is a net importer of jobs. Doesn't a Canadian steel company employ people right here in Marion? Didn't a Dutch software company move a bunch of jobs from Marion to Columbus recently? Doesn't a Japanese firm hire Ohioans to build cars near here? We import more than twice as many jobs as we export, and the jobs we import are generally higher paying. Why is this a bad thing?"

1. First, the author tries to deflect that jobs are being lost by stating that Kerry has given different figures. But who in the Kerry campaign said that?

2. Let's just assume for the sake of argument that Kerry did use differnt figures (though I don't think he did). It is indusputable that over 1 million jobs have been lost. The author again tries to deflect away from this fact by pointing out that the job force has trippled since Hoover. So what? The job force is always growing. *It was growing under Clinton, and Clinton was able to create more jobs!*

3. Next the author tries to switch the topic to outsourcing. But keep in mind that even if outsourcing is a good or bad thing, that doesn't negate the fact that jobs are being lost in America. Are you going to run on a platform that outsourcing created jobs, even though overall jobs were lost?

4. The author uses anecdotal evidence with certain companies. He then makes the claim that the US imports more jobs than it exports. Even if this were true, my point (3) above shows it is irrelevent to the overall health of the economy. But here is the thing: the author dosn't state one fact to back up his claim! He avoids doing this because he doesn't want to bore his reader. This is just dishonest.

"There is more good economic news. Household wealth is at an all time high, torpedoing the "lower paying jobs" myth. Home ownership rate is at its highest percentage ever in history. GDP is growing at a steady rate. The stock market has rebounded. Interest rates are at historic lows. Inflation is negligible. All economic indicators are pointing up"

1. Household weath tells nothing about the economy. If you are making 30,000, lose your job, and are forced on welfare; and the same is true of your two neighbors; and at the same time Bill Gates increases his worth by 1 billion dollars, then household wealth is up. That doensn't mean anything for the average person. In fact, the median income for most workers has been in decline for some time.

2. He doesn't state any source for home ownership. If it's true, well, that's the only good thing about his article.

3. The GDP is always growing. If our population is growing, normally the GDP is. That tells nothing about the health of the economy.

4. All economic indicators are not pointing up. Inflaction and interest rates are hardly the only indicators. When the health of the eocnomy is talked about, the median income, manafacturing statistics, and other factors are taken into account. And these factors do not show a rosy picture.

BOTTOM LINE:

President Bush is the first president to lose jobs since Herbert Hoover. The author of the article presents a log of fallacious arguments to try to dance around this fact.

[funnymanpants]

11. One more point

The author of the article is a real moron.

"I find it highly amusing that neither the Communist Party USA nor the Socialist Party USA are fielding candidates this year - both parties have officially endorsed Kerry. I won't discuss Communist or Socialist sociopolitical ideologies right now, but economies under these two systems tend to look like the Ford Pinto's safety record. Ever notice that Kerry does not mention these endorsements on the campaign trail?"

1. What a stupid, stupid argument! (Sorry I keep using the word stupid.) So if the Nazi party endorses Bush, is that proof that Bush is a Nazi? Kerry can't possibly control who he endorses.

2. The entire EU is based on socialism. Their standard of living is about a zillion times higher than ours. I lived in Germany for a year. They have 5 weeks of guarenteed vacation a year! I know that we can argue ourselves blue in the face over which economic system is better, the EU or the US, but the EU is one of the most powerful economies in the world, so socialism hardly represents a failed system.

3. Yes, Kerry does not mention these endorsements on the campaign trail. That is because he is not a socialist, does not endorse socialists policies, and the two endorsements are meaningless.

PS

"Besides, with the deficit around 4 percent of the GDP, I'm not fretting over it - my personal debt/production ratio is much higher, yours probably is too"

On a minor note, this is a run-on sentence. A run-on sentence shows a pretty low level of writing skills. I worked as a college instructor. Minor point, I suppose.

[ProfessorGAC]

12. Utterly Clueless

This guy is typical of people who think they know something about economics because they took 101 in college.

The problem is that every one of his points is taken in isolation and the economy works in multiple dimensions with numerous two-way and three-way interactions.

However, it's this simple. Macroeconomic health is measured by three things: Growth, sustainability, and the fraction of GDP owing to consumption.

The lever to these three things is, and has been since the modern industrial age, a preponderance of middle class income earners, with a median household income sufficient to allow at least 28% of income to be discretionary, and an employment picture that does NOT depress wages.

None of these three things are in place now! None! The middle class is shrinking as a whole (poverty up, and the fraction of rich folks is stagnant), real wages are down (or flat in some regions, but up in none), and the current level of employment does not encourage companies to boost wages to recruit and retain the best talent.

The lack of a strong and vibrant middle class puts a drag on sustainability, and lowers the consumption fraction. It also reduces the velocity of money, which means either the money supply must increase, or the availability of goods and services must go down. (The tautology of mv = pq.) Goods and services only go down with a subsequent increase in unemployment, or a further depression of wages. The former is bad on a micro scale, but the latter is worse, since it propagates the cycle.

The current economy is being sustained at its nominal growth rate by massive increases in gov't spending, most of which are funded with borrowed money. This borrowed money ultimately (as it did in the 80's) have a negative effect on equity markets. (Hence the recession and the stock market dive during 41's term.) When guaranteed money shows a higher rate of return, the risk premium in equities is insufficient to incentivize the vast majority of investors to stay there. More money gets moved into the gov't securities markets, which has a lower recycle rate than does the equity market.

So, this pollyanna thinks things are ok. But, that only true if one looks at the economic conditions as deep as the thickenss of toilet tissue. A little deeper understanding and further probing shows that this guy is a clueless buffoon.
The Professor