Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Taxes are historically low but the recovery is still slow so what gives? Republicans have been telling me my whole life low taxes= Economic boom.
The only way to eliminate taxes is to reclaim commonly created wealth to pay for common services. The Republicans haven't a clue how to do this - neither do the others. The Greens do.
Location: Segovia, central Spain, 1230 m asl, Csb Mediterranean with strong continental influence, 40º43 N
3,094 posts, read 3,573,159 times
Reputation: 1036
Quote:
Originally Posted by BradPiff
Taxes are historically low but the recovery is still slow so what gives? Republicans have been telling me my whole life low taxes= Economic boom.
Major central banks have tried everything to relaunch global economy since October 2008, but failed.
Best case, most countries will remain for more than 10 or 15 years having weak recovery, prolonged stagnation or even being back to economic downturn, depending of the case.
Worst cases, there are several options according to economic experts: Hyperinflation, deflation, World War III.
The Land cycle is approx. 18 years. Only wars and the likes interrupt it. The business cycle follows the land cycle. The business cycle feeds the land cycle.
The only way stop depressions and crashes from occurring is to halt the land cycle. This is easily done by reclaiming commonly created wealth that soaks into the land crystalizing as land values and other methods of reclaiming "unearned wealth" and "economic rent". This the root of the problem, tackling anything else is playing with symptoms and achieves little in the medium to long term.
It's time for you to read a new book/video/theory that you can embrace as "the Truth".
Major central banks have tried everything to relaunch global economy since October 2008, but failed.
Best case, most countries will remain for more than 10 or 15 years having weak recovery, prolonged stagnation or even being back to economic downturn, depending of the case.
Worst cases, there are several options according to economic experts: Hyperinflation, deflation, World War III.
To put this thread in context (and I'm sorry if someone has already said the same thing), the OP is (or at least was) a well-known doom and gloom poster who has not posted on City-Data for eight months now. He used to start thread after thread about how the sky was falling.
To put this thread in context (and I'm sorry if someone has already said the same thing), the OP is (or at least was) a well-known doom and gloom poster who has not posted on City-Data for eight months now. He used to start thread after thread about how the sky was falling.
Doom and gloom-er. The up side of a bubble doesn't look like doom and gloom. It looks like economic good times. If you see the upside of a bubble as such, then you can profit from it and you can prepare to profit from the down side when the bubble pops.
It goes like this.
Good news in my home town more houses were sold in 2013 than in 2007 and for a higher median price. We are above the peek of the last bubble. I really don't think this would have happened if the Fed hadn't maintained 0% prime from 2008 until now, and also without QE I, II, III and IV. Without that the prices of houses would still be falling.
So what is better a new bubble or letting the old one finish popping?
It's time for you to read a new book/video/theory that you can embrace as "the Truth".
It's time for you to understand something so fundamentally simple. It is not difficult.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.