Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 09-12-2013, 02:10 PM
 
Location: ATX-HOU
10,216 posts, read 8,088,197 times
Reputation: 2037

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest View Post
You defined Keynesian economics while ignoring the fact that America CAN NOT PRACTICE it.. In order for Keyneisan theories to work, you MUST run surpluses to pay down debt in good years, WHICH WE DO NOT..
Says who? Wasn't the case in the response to the Great Depression....

Quote:
So you supporting a theory that is impossible is laughable.
Ok.... What's your economic theory then....

Quote:
Anyone with 1/2 a brain knows that if you want the economy to improve, then you encourage the PRIVATE sector to spend, because the private sector is 10x as large as the government could ever be. YOU CANT take money from the private sector, and then expect them to spend more.. ITS IMPOSSIBLE..
The monetary policy of Keynesian economics is lowering interest rates... encouraging business to borrow and invest.

I still don't know where you are getting the idea that the private sector somehow has less money to work with? Elaborate please.

Quote:
Yes, they usually go up and down, more or less than others, but that doesnt change the fact that they are normally 7 year cycles. We crashed in 2007, meaning that we should be approaching the top about 2014.. We're no where close, unless of course your admitting this is the best Obama can do..
LOLzzz. Based on what? How much you hate the current president? Seriously, based off what, why should we be approaching the "top"?

Quote:
Actually its the exact same problem, just a different solution, which has been proven to fail over, and over, and over.. but here we are, kooks thinking that if you take money from the private sector after they just lost "trillions" (per you) of dollars, that they will spend more..

Again, what theories does this follow because I havent heard of it.
You keep saying they took money from the private sector.... where'd they take it? Where's the money hiding?

So... still not able to put an actual dollar amount to quantify the magnitude of this recession compared to others? I understand, you're scared.

Quote:
Ooh, so economice theories change and adapt and because of that, people will spend money that they dont have.. Where did you hear this from again?
Uhhhhh.... I'm not seeing the connection between adapting ideas and theories to new data and people spending money they don't have?

Quote:
Its called a lack of competition.. How old are you again? Profits always go up for those who has no competition, and you cant get competition increased if people have no money.. Again, you cant spend the same $1 twice.. ITS IMPOSSIBLE..
So it's a lack of competition that is preventing the all that wealth to come trickling down.... that's a new one....

Last edited by dv1033; 09-12-2013 at 02:19 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-12-2013, 02:13 PM
 
Location: ATX-HOU
10,216 posts, read 8,088,197 times
Reputation: 2037
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest View Post
Yes, soaring profits because there is no competition. Most of us understand that when you get less money into the economy, that people wont start companies and thus those businesses in existance, will increase their profits..

Thats pretty much basic 101 of supply and demand.. Why dont you understand this since you said your what, 27 again?
How is less money going into the economy? Be as specific as possible... I don't mind charts and graphs if that would help....

And again..... lack of competition is holding the economy back?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-12-2013, 02:17 PM
 
42,732 posts, read 29,775,742 times
Reputation: 14345
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest View Post
But all of that government "spending' has to be borrowed, (i.e. removed from the economy) and then taxed, (i.e. removed from the economy) in order to pay it back.

You arent stimulating a dam thing becaue the people buying into the government debt has the money. You are simply removing money from the "little people", to give it to the rich who we all know, doesnt spend their money, thus they dont stimulate..

What exactly should these cash hoarding companies spend their money on?
Full-time employees. Instead of unpaid internships, part-time employees, and contract workers. That would be one thing they could spend their money on.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-12-2013, 02:17 PM
 
Location: ATX-HOU
10,216 posts, read 8,088,197 times
Reputation: 2037
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest View Post
Ahh, so you're calling Obama and Pelosi a liar because they indeed did argue that it was greater when they justified their bull **** economic theories.


Food Stamps as an Economic Stimulus? - YouTube
It is my understanding that food stamps ends up in the pockets of those business and industries that produce and sell food... Not sure how it left the economy or whatever nonsense. Corporate and social welfare yes, but that money didn't leave.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-12-2013, 03:37 PM
 
Location: Alameda, CA
7,605 posts, read 4,828,288 times
Reputation: 1438
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest View Post
Lets see if I can summarize this new left wing argument as to why the economy isnt improving..

Now the argument has turned into, the people lost trillions of dollars in private assets, so if we take even trillions more out of the economy and give it to the government, while devaluing the dollar by printing more, that somehow, people will spend more, even though they have less than they had before.

yes folks, its as stupid as it sounds...
The economy has been improving for several years now. There has been job growth for several years now. There has been GDP growth for several years now. The depth and breadth of the recession was quite severe. It will take many in the multiple class years to recover to the point they were prior to the start of the recession, even if they never lost there job.

It looks to me that the dollar has been in an upward trend since the beginning of 2011.
US Dollar Currency Index - .DXY - Stock Quotes
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-12-2013, 03:46 PM
 
1,980 posts, read 3,759,932 times
Reputation: 1600
Quote:
Originally Posted by WilliamSmyth View Post
The economy has been improving for several years now. There has been job growth for several years now. There has been GDP growth for several years now.
All three have been stagnant. An average President would have presided over robust growth over the past few years. Sadly Obama has proven to be the very worst in US history.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-12-2013, 03:48 PM
 
11,086 posts, read 8,513,165 times
Reputation: 6392
My dog Bob knows more about economics than the average Democrat.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-12-2013, 03:51 PM
 
Location: Alameda, CA
7,605 posts, read 4,828,288 times
Reputation: 1438
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andy View Post
All three have been stagnant. An average President would have presided over robust growth over the past few years. Sadly Obama has proven to be the very worst in US history.
There will not be robust growth until the middle class further recovers from the bursting of the real estate bubble. There are signs that this is starting to occur. Very few Presidents have come into office after such a serious financial collapse.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-13-2013, 06:34 AM
 
2,040 posts, read 2,451,194 times
Reputation: 1066
Quote:
Originally Posted by WilliamSmyth View Post
There will not be robust growth until the middle class further recovers from the bursting of the real estate bubble. There are signs that this is starting to occur. Very few Presidents have come into office after such a serious financial collapse.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterfer...rst-president/

The recession ended four years ago, according to the National Bureau of Economic Research.* So Obamanomics has had plenty of time to produce a solid recovery.* In fact, since the American historical record is the worse the recession, the stronger the recovery, Obama should have had an easy time producing a booming recovery by now.
Obama likes to tout that we are doing better now than at the worst of the recession.* But every recovery is better than the recession, by definition.* So that doesn’t mean much
..........
In the 10 previous recessions since the Great Depression, prior to this last recession, the economy recovered all jobs lost during the recession after an average of 25 months after the prior jobs peak (when the recession began), according to the records kept by the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis.* So the job effects of prior post Depression recessions have lasted an average of about 2 years.* But under President Obama, by April, 2013, 64 months after the prior jobs peak, almost 5½ years, we still have not recovered all of the recession’s job losses.*

Posted with TapaTalk
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-13-2013, 11:04 AM
 
Location: ATX-HOU
10,216 posts, read 8,088,197 times
Reputation: 2037
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bludy-L View Post
Economically, Could Obama Be America's Worst President? - Forbes

The recession ended four years ago, according to the National Bureau of Economic Research.* So Obamanomics has had plenty of time to produce a solid recovery.* In fact, since the American historical record is the worse the recession, the stronger the recovery, Obama should have had an easy time producing a booming recovery by now.
Obama likes to tout that we are doing better now than at the worst of the recession.* But every recovery is better than the recession, by definition.* So that doesn’t mean much
..........
In the 10 previous recessions since the Great Depression, prior to this last recession, the economy recovered all jobs lost during the recession after an average of 25 months after the prior jobs peak (when the recession began), according to the records kept by the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis.* So the job effects of prior post Depression recessions have lasted an average of about 2 years.* But under President Obama, by April, 2013, 64 months after the prior jobs peak, almost 5½ years, we still have not recovered all of the recession’s job losses.*

Posted with TapaTalk
I posed this question to another poster who was too scared to verify how this last economic downturn compared to the Great Depression, let's see if you can do it. It seems it is a recent talking point with ignorant conservatives that this recession wasn't all that severe and a "good" president could snap his fingers and lift us out of it like the previous recessions (except the Great Depression).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top