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.
The top FAIL showed you 58,000 plus business filings for BK which is a seperate portion of my post , below it were the businessfailings. You said not much changed since the last recession but in fact business FAILINGS increased as you see. The business filings above it were to give you an idea of how many businesses filed BK .
If businesses werent failing, it wouldnt be a recession.. Do you have a point other than to show that you have no clue that bankruptcy means reorganization for companies.. bank liquidation.. Many small businesses just "disappear", they file a corporation dissolution papers with the government and poof they are gone. The only time you need to go through bk is when you want to protect assets and reorganize.. You can key in red, underline, bold, but until you understand that BANKRUPTCY does not always mean FAILING, your postings are gibborish.. GM filed bankruptcy are they GONE? No..
Suppose A has enough income to save and is in a spot where a lot of his/her spending is discretionary. Feeling uneasy about the economic times, A saves against a risky future, which of course decreases demand.
Suppose B has very little income and most of his/her spending is anything but discretionary. He/she will be highly motivated to spend a large proportion of what comes his/her way. An extra dollar in B's pocket doesn't stay there for very long. That increases demand.
These aren't hypotheticals, every set of data gathered makes it clear that this is exactly what happens. If a government wants to actively fight a lackluster economy, putting money in the hands of low-income groups simply trigger more consumption than putting the same amount towards high-income groups.
When A "saves" money, that money gets reloaned back out to people who are spending.. Where do yo uthink it gets saved? Under peoples mattresses? The government is actually hindering economic growth by not allowing people to save, by removing money out of the economy, thereby banks can not loan out to increase businesses, to buy new homes, thereby limiting the damages in the housing market, they cant hire, they cant expand.. Its governments fault.. And the more government takes out of the economy, the worse things will get.. The CBO said for every $1 the government gets, it takes $3 away from the GDP of the country, over and obver 17% of the nations spending. We are FAR over this percentage..
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dane_in_LA
ETA: As odinloki1 points out, major public works is another (and probably better) way of injecting money into the economy. But it appears that the US has lost its way in that regard. The closest is some of the utterly unneeded defense sector programs, but those tend to pay off middle- and upper-middle-class project managers, engineers etc., not low-income grunts working paycheck to paycheck.
If you mean things like road repairs, as public works, this does not encourage economic growth because the projects were already planned, such as the last stimulus. If you move a project that would take place next year, and do it now, you simply move the jobs from next year to now, and move the economic boost that would take place next year to now.. The net incresase is zero. Not because the project didnt create jobs, but simply because you moved the time period..
Actually say most of the PHD economists that work for this administration (and prior.) Now should we listen to highly educated individuals with PHDs, or should we listen to...you?
Obamas own economic advisors said the same thing sanrene said. In fact one of them published a book in 1999 which said that increasing and continuing unemployment increases unemployment.. Now all of a sudden they did a 180.. I wonder why
Obamas own economic advisors said the same thing sanrene said. In fact one of them published a book in 1999 which said that increasing and continuing unemployment increases unemployment.. Now all of a sudden they did a 180.. I wonder why
Hmm could it possibly be the fact continuing unemployment could have differing impacts during a boom time and during a time of high unemployment??
Obamas own economic advisors said the same thing sanrene said. In fact one of them published a book in 1999 which said that increasing and continuing unemployment increases unemployment.. Now all of a sudden they did a 180.. I wonder why
That is a good one. Why did they do a 180? Unemployment is a negative feedback loop. The economy is built on the profit from labor. Cut the labor and the profits go away. Imagine that, and when the profits go away then the businesses go away as well.
We need to replace the missing money that the people that are out of work would have been spending. The old government picking up where the privet setor left off doesn't work when you have 70% of the economy run on consumer spending. So give the out of work people some money to spend and everyone else as well and the economy should do a nice 180.
That is a good one. Why did they do a 180? Unemployment is a negative feedback loop. The economy is built on the profit from labor. Cut the labor and the profits go away. Imagine that, and when the profits go away then the businesses go away as well.
We need to replace the missing money that the people that are out of work would have been spending. The old government picking up where the privet setor left off doesn't work when you have 70% of the economy run on consumer spending. So give the out of work people some money to spend and everyone else as well and the economy should do a nice 180.
And when the money is gone (spent), then what? Just keep printing and handing out more?
And when the money is gone (spent), then what? Just keep printing and handing out more?
If you take a look at the great depression what ended it was putting everyone to work on the war effort. The men got a check for mostly sitting on their assets and the women got a check for doing factory work. Putting everyone to work is what is really needed, but letting everyone spend money like they had a job and everyone that wanted a job would be able to get one.
“And when the money is gone (spent), then what?” The money is never gone when you spend it the person that you bought something from has it to spend again, and again, etc. The term in economics is called the velocity of money.
“Just keep printing and handing out more?” Well when the unemployment rate is over 5% why not? How you keep the money from causing hyperinflation is, you up the reserve requirements that the banks are required to keep on hand, let them pay the inflation tax. And buy the national debt at no interest.
If you take a look at the great depression what ended it was putting everyone to work on the war effort. The men got a check for mostly sitting on their assets and the women got a check for doing factory work. Putting everyone to work is what is really needed, but letting everyone spend money like they had a job and everyone that wanted a job would be able to get one.
Only as long as the money printing presses and handout spigot keep flowing. You've already acknowledged that debt creates money, which is correct. Look at what happened when additional debt creation froze. Look at the results of the already attempted quantitative easing.
You're advocating kicking the can down the road instead of resolving the problem.
That is a good one. Why did they do a 180? Unemployment is a negative feedback loop. The economy is built on the profit from labor. Cut the labor and the profits go away. Imagine that, and when the profits go away then the businesses go away as well.
I've learned a mathmatical equation a very long time ago that goes something like this.
If you can earn $X bypaying someone $X + $Y.. then do it..
Quote:
Originally Posted by newonecoming2
We need to replace the missing money that the people that are out of work would have been spending. The old government picking up where the privet setor left off doesn't work when you have 70% of the economy run on consumer spending. So give the out of work people some money to spend and everyone else as well and the economy should do a nice 180.
You cant replace missing money without taking it out of the economy to begin with.. Why is this difficult for many to get? If government is draining the economy of all of the capital, then people have nothing to borrow.. Businesses cant expand, people cant buy homes, you cant get a line of credit for products, payroll etc.. THERE IS NO MONEY..
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.
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.
