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.
While I'd agree with you, in theory. What impact will shopping less have on the economy?
Let's say we cut back just 5%. That means stores either have to raise their prices 5% to make up the difference, which means we have to cut back even more or stores have to cut their costs by 5%. They aren't going to sit still and just take the loss. If they go with option 1, we have a recession with inflation. If they go with option 2 we spiral into another recession with even higher unemployment.
If the economy were growing, we could handle option #1. We'd spend just as much just have less. As things are, we cannot handle either option but one will come to fruition when we go off the fiscal cliff. I guess another option is a combination of the two. Inflation and higher unemployment.
You make a decent case, but this country can adjust IMO. Americans really do need to start saving and stop shopping so damn much.
Long Depression of 19th century serves as a great learning process, doesn't it? Now, let us address your denial about quantitative easing when done by Treasury versus when done by Feds. Spell out the difference.
I already answered that question. I am not going to repeat what I have already said in this thread because you have an issue reading my posts.
Quote:
Not being an idiot, I can point at extremism. If you can't, that is a shortcoming with your abilities. But then, I see the continued idiocy on compromise between utopian beliefs and reality and incessantly whining about it for not accepting it.
I agree. Compromising on Utopian beliefs such as government run social programs promote long term economic health is nothing but idiocy.
Quote:
Why would they move out of Ireland? That was the question. Unless you're alluding to an idea that they would do so out of "patriotism".
The average corporation spends millions every year maintaining legal entities. Optimizing a company's portfolio of legal entities is a dramatic cost-savings which lowered corporate tax rates would cause. Patriotism has nothing to do with it.
Yet again, you have trouble understanding the money side of these decisions.
Quote:
Doesn't matter in that case. The fact is, higher costs didn't prevent the company from choosing to go NYC. But then, we could look further and see that Dallas lost hundreds (literally) of jobs to thousands hired by the same company in India (and it wasn't promise of lower corporate tax rates that did that because effective rates in India and China are higher... wages are cheaper). But then, for someone who believe things operate in vacuum and we should only look at individual pieces and not how they all tie together... well, I can see the challenge involved. So, how about government spending being so high in Ireland. Could it be a consequence, or an attraction, that comes with it being a tax haven?
High government spending in Ireland is immaterial to the idea of it as a tax haven. Corporations keep assets on the books extremely low in Ireland while utilizing it for technology and patent fees, which are relatively unaffected by high government spending.
Quote:
You sound desperate. No sire, I didn't come up with this list on my own like an idiot would. I didn't present the list to demonstrate my ability to create a list on my own.
But, perhaps, I should have been more clear so you're not a completely lost cause. Which country (or countries) do you believe the USA most favorably compares to in that list... as a nation? And I mean, in more ways than one.
Now let us look at your next excuse that all of them have lower corporate tax rates than the USA. Let us take the top three:
Hong Kong: 16.5%
Ireland: 12.5%
Lebanon: 15%
So, how come effective total corporate tax rate in the USA was only 12.1% in 2011?
Desperate? I went through your list line by line and disproved every country you provided me. I gave tax rates on the books, not effective rates. The effective rates for those countries are lower still.
You understand the difference between book rates and effective rates, don't you? Stop avoiding the issue and at least admit that your list of countries was full of enough holes that anyone can see through it to the other side.
Quote:
Excuse me for not joining you in believing in Utopian ideas.
So you admit that you would rather stick to your ideals, not compromise, and see the negative consequences than work together to get some sort of solution in place? Maybe you should stick with robotics and leave strategic policy to someone else.
Quote:
Because it is SOCIAL safety net. Government is the SOCIAL body of citizens.
You didn't answer my question. If we can have a safety net that provides even more for the average citizen and as a side effect government is not involved, why would you lobby against that? You seem to be crossing your arms, stomping your foot and saying "it should stay with the government because it is with the government". That is circular argument.
Quote:
For someone who believes to be "fast" you sure take your time when it comes to responding. Now allow me to tell you that the curve doesn't explain because it can't think. Its very purpose is to serve as a theory which may or may not apply depending on situations. It is why we need human-thinking, not something set on stone that must be presumed to be "perfect" regardless of situation. But hey, we're basically spelling out why you're a conservative, and I'm a progressive.
Believe it or not, I don't sit on this board waiting for you to reply, so I am not sure why the speed of my reply has anything to do with anything.
Obviously a graph can't think. My god, do you really believe that anyone thinks that? It's purpose is to help guide our thinking towards trends that human-thinking can analyze and utilize. Obviously it is not 'perfect'. The fact that you cannot see a trend in the numbers for fear of losing sight of your ideals is why you are a liberal and I am not. I am not a conservative, I am libertarian. The fact that you continually can't see the difference between the two really worries me.
Quote:
I didn't expect you to accept itemized listing of what you really are about. You'd been deflecting for a reason, and now this excuse. Heck, I gave you a CBO estimate over a decade, didn't I? Or, do actual numbers from the same agency make you angry that you are not going to accept it, just as you won't that you're into forcing ALL states to accept this conservative idea of Tort Reform whether they like it or not.
I gave my reasons, I gave my itemized list. It is in the article that I posted a link to that you still refuse to read. Read the article then get back to me champ.
Quote:
I think, in your desire to demonstrate being fast, the reality caught up... did I not spell it out for you to which you responded...
"Yet again, warm fuzzy, emotional ideals with zero thought to the financial stability or fiscal realities of implementation."
I guess the examples I presented don't exist. But hey, one of us trusts things as set on stone, and that ain't me.
I am confused, earlier you said I take too long to respond, and now you are calling me 'fast', which is it?
You gave examples without numbers. Give me something financial. Prove that you have given the idea of how to pay for your plan the slightest thought.
Quote:
Keep your olive branch for someone who can't differentiate between utopian and reality.
i.e., you still refuse to even consider compromising? Got it.
Let me ask again. Please give the specifics of your plan. How would it be implemented? How would it be paid for? In every thread you dodge every question surrounding anything financial.
Or can you admit that you are uneducated and inexperienced with finances or economics, and don't have any clue how to pay for what you are proposing? I am sure you will deflect again, as you seem to enjoy doing.
The difference between the Federal Reserve and the Treasury is simple...
The Treasury can't print it's own money to cover the deficit....so they simply have the Fed which is a conduit to doing exactly that. The fed buying the debt is the "printing of the money". Then they alter the balance of the debts account with enough new money to cover the debt..Then the gov takes the money to pay down the deficit spending....
It's no different than the Treasury printing it's own money to pay off the debt. So.... this brings up the question.... Why do they do it in the first place?
You make a decent case, but this country can adjust IMO. Americans really do need to start saving and stop shopping so damn much.
Yeah but unemployment needs to be lower than it is and people need to be getting raises to force the issue. Forcing it now will force us into another recession or even a full blown depression. You handle this by offering tax incentives to people to save when you're in a good economy. We need to get to a good economy first. It's putting the cart before the horse right now.
I do agree that we spend too much, waste too much and save too little though. Now just isn't the time to force the issue.
We need to wait until people are back to work and getting raises. Even if those raises don't pay for all of the cost increase, they will stave off a recession. It's been 5 years since dh had a raise and I'm working for 60% of what I was making in 2007. There are too many families like us out there. There's little left to cut. You need to get the economy growing again first.
I already answered that question. I am not going to repeat what I have already said in this thread because you have an issue reading my posts.
Well, this serves as the answer, just as it did, the last time around.
Quote:
I agree. Compromising on Utopian beliefs such as government run social programs promote long term economic health is nothing but idiocy.
Color me surprised for someone living with Utopian beliefs, agreeing with self.
Quote:
The average corporation spends millions every year maintaining legal entities. Optimizing a company's portfolio of legal entities is a dramatic cost-savings which lowered corporate tax rates would cause. Patriotism has nothing to do with it.
Exactly. Clearly, there is a hell lot more than you're capable of considering. So, thanks for proving my point.
Quote:
High government spending in Ireland is immaterial to the idea of it as a tax haven. Corporations keep assets on the books extremely low in Ireland while utilizing it for technology and patent fees, which are relatively unaffected by high government spending.
Not necessarily. But that is also only one other part of the bigger picture.
Quote:
Desperate? I went through your list line by line and disproved every country you provided me. I gave tax rates on the books, not effective rates. The effective rates for those countries are lower still.
That is not why I called you desperate. Attribute that to the rather amusing remark you had to go with it. What I did call this was an excuse. But glad you realize that you shouldn't always rely on statutory rates but also consider effective rates. Which helps me get back to a point I wanted to consider initially... you think "corporations". I am thinking "small businesses". When I said it is better to reduce corporate tax rates (sensibly) while closing loop holes, I was alluding to corporations that are better positioned to take advantage of these loop holes and tax havens than the small businesses. But then, I'm a left winger, so I do consider the little guys into policy making.
Quote:
You understand the difference between book rates and effective rates, don't you? Stop avoiding the issue and at least admit that your list of countries was full of enough holes that anyone can see through it to the other side.
I may have to stop giving you the benefit of doubt of being a smart person who gets things without having to spell out things completely. Why do you think I'd underlined a specific word if I didn't understand the difference between statutory and effective rates, much less quote overall effective rate from 2011?
Quote:
So you admit that you would rather stick to your ideals, not compromise, and see the negative consequences than work together to get some sort of solution in place? Maybe you should stick with robotics and leave strategic policy to someone else.
Try not to speak for me. I'm a progressive. I'd HATE to be one of you. Being a progressive entails continuous monitoring of effectiveness. It entails consideration of ALL aspects. So, it would be utter stupidity on your part to assume that I prefer to operate on something set on stone. That would make me like you. The difference also shows up when you speak of ideals. As if, there were a standard definition of it, and an enumerated list of what makes it up. To me, ideals aren't policies. They do contribute towards policies that I support or oppose.
My only issue with this compromise you keep bumbling about is that your ideas are so out of touch with realities, that it leaves no room for compromise. There is nothing to compromise when you claim that we should just assume pain and suffering on most Americans for 20-30 years. Do you want me to recommend 10 years instead, to reach a "compromise".
Ridiculous.
Quote:
You didn't answer my question. If we can have a safety net that provides even more for the average citizen and as a side effect government is not involved, why would you lobby against that? You seem to be crossing your arms, stomping your foot and saying "it should stay with the government because it is with the government". That is circular argument.
Just because you don't get it, doesn't mean it is a circular argument. It is simply a lack of comprehension, of the situation, or experiences and of realities on your part. Government exists for a reason. The reason isn't to provide Wall Street a continuous supply of "customers" who are assumed to be well versed with practices within, at all times, and insulated from corruptions. A safety net is a guarantee. If it lacks a guarantee, it isn't a safety net. And when we add "social" to it, it becomes a societal concern.
Quote:
Believe it or not, I don't sit on this board waiting for you to reply, so I am not sure why the speed of my reply has anything to do with anything.
Excuse me for not assuming that you were simply trolling with statements like this: "I am not sure if you are just slow on the uptake, but I will answer you for a third time. Try actually reading what I wrote for a change slugger."
I guess, you now hate the idea so there is no point continuing with it.
Quote:
Obviously a graph can't think. My god, do you really believe that anyone thinks that? It's purpose is to help guide our thinking towards trends that human-thinking can analyze and utilize. Obviously it is not 'perfect'...
Welcome to a glimpse of my world. Going forward, avoid presenting it as a firm, unrelenting, set on stone, rule of thumb to guide policies with utter disregard for specific situations. Because THAT is where human thinking is required.
Quote:
The fact that you cannot see a trend in the numbers for fear of losing sight of your ideals is why you are a liberal and I am not. I am not a conservative, I am libertarian. The fact that you continually can't see the difference between the two really worries me.
And it doesn't surprise me that you don't have a clue why I prefer self to be seen as a progressive (hint: not a liberal) when going against conservatism, or as a liberal (hint: not a progressive) when going against authoritarianism. So, please try to not tell me about my personal ideals. It is idiotic.
Quote:
I gave my reasons, I gave my itemized list. It is in the article that I posted a link to that you still refuse to read. Read the article then get back to me champ.
You just parroted the same words. I take it that you accept my conclusions.
Quote:
You gave examples without numbers. Give me something financial. Prove that you have given the idea of how to pay for your plan the slightest thought.
You asked how do I propose to pay for it. The response didn't necessitate numbers, it necessitated what entails "how". May be you have the capacity to do more when someone asks... "how do you plan to pay for defense spending"... obviously your response would be with specific numbers, right?
Let me repeat: Taxes. I don't mind them, as long as they are used to pay for CHIP to a child in need, an elderly in Long Term Care paid via Medicaid, or one of my favorite right wing characeters here roysoldboy's Medicare needs, or millions of vets who now need medical care for the rest of their life, costing billions of dollars. But I guess, as long as I don't assign a specific number, you wouldn't have a clue about how do we go about it?
Which one? EGTRRA? JGTRRA? ARRA? All of them? Only one of them?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ivorytickler
Yeah but unemployment needs to be lower than it is and people need to be getting raises to force the issue.
1-Why is unemployment lower than it should be? For that matter, why do you believe we have employment problems? We dealt with this in 2002, 2003, 2004, 2007, 2008 and 2009 too. No?
2-How do you propose people getting "raises"?
Stop playing partisan hack and answer the question....??
A partisan-hack tends to be selective. You've multiple options. Do you want to be a partisan hack by being picky? Or, do you prefer a broader comparison that isn't about avoiding what would be inconvenient to a partisan hack?
PS. I see you edited your post while I responded above. I will give six months in each case to assume impact on job growth.
EGTRRA, 2001: First Bush Tax Cuts (largely a campaign promise but served up as a stimulus to economic slowdown in 2001). Signed June 2001.
Private Sector Employment, Jan 2002 (six months later): 109.21 million
Failed to create jobs. A second stimulus planned and passed.
JGTRRA, 2003: Second Bush Tax Cuts. Signed May 2003.
Private Sector Employment, May 2003: 108.27 million
Private Sector Employment, Nov 2003 (six months later): 108.67 million
Private Sector Employment, Nov 2004 (1.5 years later): 110.49 million
Change in Private Sector Employment...
Effect of EGTRRA thru JGTRRA (23 months since Jan 2002): -0.54 million
Effect of JGTRRA (in one year): +1.82 million
Effect of EGTRRA AND JGTRRA (Jan 2002 thru Nov 2004, 35 months): +1.28 million jobs
ARRA, 2009: Obama Stimulus. Signed Feb 2009.
Private Sector Employment, Aug 2009 (six months later): 107.42 million
Private Sector Employment, Aug 2010 (1.5 years later): 107.50 million
Private Sector Employment, Jul 2012 (35 months since Aug 2009): 112.30 million
Effect of ARRA (one year): +0.08 million
Effect of ARRA (35 months): +4.88 million
If that is how you want to see stimulus work.
Last edited by EinsteinsGhost; 12-28-2012 at 02:58 PM..
Here is my premise.. we need more unemployment because the "aggregate demand" is for.....more unemployment.
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.
