The new Ryan Budget... (regular, ratings, economy, education system)

[Loveshiscountry]

Originally Posted by greywar

hmmm 1940:20 million....odd....so much lower then after the war....

I'm embarrassed for you too. You missed his point, in comparison with before the war, after the war we spent like drunken sailors. While I'm not here to agree or disagree with him, I am here to point out you posted your own ignorance while making fun of someone else....incorrectly it appears.

speaking of ignorant let me requote this.
The times we spent like a drunken sailor (post WW2 and Reagan Administration) the economy expanded at unprecedented rates.

Why are you comparing before the war instead of during the war? Was it because before the war our competitors were bombed and their industries were flattened or was that after the war?

I'll help some more. We spent more during the war than after. Which was my point in my post which YOU ignored. So why was the economy so bad during the war? You're not very good at this are you?

[Loveshiscountry]

Originally Posted by dv1033

Of course you want the private sector spending and investing domestically more so than the public. However, what happens when the private sector isn't "up to the task".

Quite frankly, wasteful US government spending has given some of the most beneficial technological advances in transportation (aviation), telecommunications, and medicine. Not to mention infrastructure.

Why do you think the private sector would not have come up with that same technology? One thing we know for sure if government says they are going to develop something the private sector rarely competes.

Originally Posted by dv1033

And quite frankly, there is good wasteful government spending, along with non wasteful government spending.

Dunno about that. We do know that if a private business spends wastefully it'll go under

Originally Posted by dv1033

It's silly to talk in absolutes and dogmas as we are living in an a rapidly changing era in the new millennium. Trends that emerged in the late 20th century in technology, automation, and globalization have only accelerated. The private sector has used those trends at the expense of labor in general. More govt spending/social welfare will only get bigger as jobs become fewer and less prosperous for the general population. We should really figure out a better way to administer welfare. Hopefully, a leader(s) will emerge that will have the stones to take on the military industrial complex and replace it with an infrastructure-construction industrial complex.

I'm glad you brought up technology. Can you name any other field where costs have sky rocketed like the cost of medicine since technology lowers cost?
And you flat out nailed it about the military industrial complex. Imagine all the money we'd save if we lowered military spending and brought the troops home. An overwhelming amount of the military personnels money would be spent here.
We could even increase defense spending and open more bases here while decreasing military spending and still save money. Better protection of our borders and more jobs created. win win

[Loveshiscountry]

Originally Posted by dv1033

Sounds like you just got schooled in Keynesians economics, high govt spending when the economy is down and low when it's up.

The point made is lowering that tax helped jump start investment. Job creation. Nothing to do with Keynesian Economics and if Keynes were alive today even he'd be shocked at the amount of government involvement.

[greywar]

Originally Posted by Loveshiscountry

speaking of ignorant let me requote this.
The times we spent like a drunken sailor (post WW2 and Reagan Administration) the economy expanded at unprecedented rates.

Why are you comparing before the war instead of during the war? Was it because before the war our competitors were bombed and their industries were flattened or was that after the war?

I'll help some more. We spent more during the war than after. Which was my point in my post which YOU ignored. So why was the economy so bad during the war? You're not very good at this are you?

Actually Im very good at this. But maybe you should go back and re-read my post, im not involved in the discussion at all, Im not debating any of this with you. You're just all butt hurt that I pointed out your foolish mistake.

I dont care about your point at all. I care about the fact that you rebutted someone, and were a jerk about it....while in your rebuttal you made his point.

Understood? Or do you always behave this way flailing about with insults and not understanding the posts being made?

[Loveshiscountry]

Originally Posted by greywar

Actually Im very good at this.

You haven't proved it yet

Originally Posted by greywar

But maybe you should go back and re-read my post, im not involved in the discussion at all, Im not debating any of this with you.

Who cares if you're involved or not. That has nothing to do with it. Gee go figure you made another baseless point. And YES YOU ARE debating it as weak as it is. You said I was wrong. Prove it. Why because you said so? The FACT is you haven't backed up ONE thing.

Originally Posted by greywar

You're just all butt hurt that I pointed out your foolish mistake.

What mistake? It was YOUR mistake for not reading my simple post.
Keep ignoring this. - If government spending is so good why was the economy horrible during the war when spending was at its highest? You won't answer you'll just turn tail and run.

Originally Posted by greywar

I dont care about your point at all. I care about the fact that you rebutted someone, and were a jerk about it....while in your rebuttal you made his point.

Then why say I was wrong?
I didn't make his point. Show proof I did. You won't answer you'll just turn tail and run.

Originally Posted by greywar

Understood? Or do you always behave this way flailing about with insults

Yet you can do it. My how hypocritical of you.

Originally Posted by greywar

and not understanding the posts being made?

YOU are the one who doesn't understand. That's not my fault you cannot comprehend. You have no ground to stand on which you prove with every post. you have not once defended your absurd post.

Again here is the quote of the post that I highlighted
The times we spent like a drunken sailor (post WW2 and Reagan Administration) the economy expanded at unprecedented rates.

My response AND the facts which you refuse to comment on.
We spent more during the war than after it. The economy was horrible during the war.
Govt spending in billions
1940 20.42
1941 24.35
1942 45.58
1943 92.71
1944 109.95
1945 118.18
1946 79.71
1947 57.73
1948 55.08
1949 62.71
1950 70.33

So far from you, nothing of fact in your rebuttal, just because you said so.
Again If government spending is so good why was the economy horrible during the war when spending was at its highest? I'll be waiting.

You made a baseless post which you cannot possibly back up so now you're deflecting. At least the poster who I took on has the guts to try and back up his statements. I'll commend the poster for that. You have nothing.

[greywar]

Originally Posted by pghquest

I'd like to hear how me reducing my spending by giving the government $1,000, generates an increased in demand.

Probably one of the only reasonable posts lately. The answer is...it depends.

It depends on what you would have done with it, vs what they do with it. Lets say they spend it on R&D, somethings only governments invest in, big projects. Say the laser ignition facility. If successful its probably a better use then what you would have used it for. demand for some things would decrease, but demand for others would go nuts.

On the other hand....lets say they give it to someone on welfare. that person spends it quickly on food clothing and rent. Probably not so different then you, but its hard to say since I dont know you.

Now...what if they instead buy a tank with it. This actually isnt as bad as it sound, someone has to make it, but generally its large multinational companies. Probably worse then what you would have done. But some side benefits such as defending our nation (that hasn't been seriously attacked on our soil in over 50 years really). Overall this is different, probably also a wash.

Now...what if instead they use it to offset taxes not collected from say a oil company. Probably worse use yet. Or maybe they help fund the oil companies exploration for new oil...same thing really. you could argue cheaper gas, but often as we know that's not the case.

So the answer is-some things taxes used for are pretty darn good, some things a wash, and others bad. AND it depends on whom the taxes come from.

A lot of people are trying to argue really simple cause and effect economics, when the reality is its more complex. A LOT more complex. And yet they feel very strongly about it. Funny that. Its like trying to explain software engineering to someone unfamiliar with it. they get the base concepts, but the execution isn't really there at all. And then you get some who did a bit in high school or wrote some simple software, without understanding how really professional software engineering works.

Bottom line, Oversimplification is nice for a general idea, but it really doesn't help you understand it.

[greywar]

Originally Posted by Loveshiscountry

If government spending is so good why was the economy horrible during the war when spending was at its highest? I'll be waiting.

I didn't come here to argue your sophomoric arguments. I'm not even here to talk to you. You acted like a jerk, got schooled about it, and I came in to laugh at you. thats all.

Sigh. Fine. lets do this.

Maybe because during a war inefficiencies in the use of capital impact the economy. You can spend more, but when you spend it poorly your economy is going to suck.

Afterwards when you begin to spend your money better you see a large rise in the economy as all the spent up possibilities can be invested in.


Spending has a time and a place, thinking that its either always spend more, or always spend less is foolish in the extreme.

I recommend some reading. Oddly enough while its a comic, and occasionally takes some shortcuts, its a pretty good beginning for you:

Economix Comix

Buy the book on Amazon. I recommend this to anyone unfamiliar with economics, but warn folks that its not 100% correct either, and further education is recommended. Please dont take the fact that its a comic to be meant as an insult, its not.

[Loveshiscountry]

Originally Posted by greywar

I didn't come here to argue your sophomoric arguments. I'm not even here to talk to you. You acted like a jerk, got schooled about it, and I came in to laugh at you. thats all.

So you're trolling. Good to know. You keep saying I've been schooled yet offered no proof. You tried to say I said something when I didn't. That was dishonest on your part.

Originally Posted by greywar

Sigh. Fine. lets do this.

Maybe because during a war inefficiencies in the use of capital impact the economy. You can spend more, but when you spend it poorly your economy is going to suck.

Afterwards when you begin to spend your money better you see a large rise in the economy as all the spent up possibilities can be invested in.

Which is the same thing private business does. And we know there are not nearly as many checks and balances on government as in the private sector. Especially during war time. The old "how can you put a price on beating the enemy". Government can't run out of our money so there isn't nearly as much need to be efficient with it.

And here's sore basic economics. Replace any industry with inferior workers quality goes down. Our best workers were overseas. How can an economy get better? Remember the times. The workers were mainly white males The were replaced in a part by females and minorities. All good people I'm sure but how can one expect quality to improve when the working class had more inexperienced workers?

Another basic economic reason. The trade off between consumer and producer is a quality product for a fair price. There wasn't much in quality to purchase. (which was the main reason people saved then) Powdered eggs, powdered milk, rationing, hard to get anything quality wise unless one went to the black market and then they paid high prices.

Originally Posted by greywar

Spending has a time and a place, thinking that its either always spend more, or always spend less is foolish in the extreme.

Would it be better if I said an overwhelming majority of the time? When government does it. Because we know throughout history government does not spend as wisely as the private sector. It's the Free Money concept.

Originally Posted by greywar

I recommend some reading. Oddly enough while its a comic, and occasionally takes some shortcuts, its a pretty good beginning for you:

Economix Comix

I don't follow economists for the sake of following them because they have the name economist. I follow the ones who've been right about our economy. The ones who told us the Great Depression was coming and the reasons why. The ones who told us about the housing boom and bust we just recently experienced in the mid to late 1940's in general terms and in specific terms in 1979 because of what Carter got the ball rolling on. Hazlett -Economics in one easy lesson, Credit Diverts production.

My point is why listen to those who have been wrong?
Would you listen to the Cubs organization on how to win the World Series just because they've been in baseball forever?
Too often people listen to the ones whose job it is to control things. Why listen to government officials on how to figure inflation when it's their job to keep it low? The fox watching the henhouse.

Originally Posted by greywar

Buy the book on Amazon. I recommend this to anyone unfamiliar with economics, but warn folks that its not 100% correct either, and further education is recommended. Please dont take the fact that its a comic to be meant as an insult, its not.

Understood. It's the same reason I've listen to Friedman. Not because I always agree with him but because he breaks it down in simple terms that the average Joe understands.

[pghquest]

Originally Posted by dv1033

And what is the state of the overall economy during theses time of high govt spending.........?

LOLZ convenient since Reagan and Bush Sr were quite the spenders.....lots of military.

I have never defended either ones spending...

Originally Posted by dv1033

Sounds like you just got schooled in Keynesians economics, high govt spending when the economy is down and low when it's up.

Keynesian economics depend on the government paying down debt in good times, which we never do, and why the whole theory fails in the US.

Originally Posted by greywar

Probably one of the only reasonable posts lately. The answer is...it depends.

It depends on what you would have done with it, vs what they do with it. Lets say they spend it on R&D, somethings only governments invest in, big projects. Say the laser ignition facility. If successful its probably a better use then what you would have used it for. demand for some things would decrease, but demand for others would go nuts.

On the other hand....lets say they give it to someone on welfare. that person spends it quickly on food clothing and rent. Probably not so different then you, but its hard to say since I dont know you.

Now...what if they instead buy a tank with it. This actually isnt as bad as it sound, someone has to make it, but generally its large multinational companies. Probably worse then what you would have done. But some side benefits such as defending our nation (that hasn't been seriously attacked on our soil in over 50 years really). Overall this is different, probably also a wash.

Now...what if instead they use it to offset taxes not collected from say a oil company. Probably worse use yet. Or maybe they help fund the oil companies exploration for new oil...same thing really. you could argue cheaper gas, but often as we know that's not the case.

So the answer is-some things taxes used for are pretty darn good, some things a wash, and others bad. AND it depends on whom the taxes come from.

A lot of people are trying to argue really simple cause and effect economics, when the reality is its more complex. A LOT more complex. And yet they feel very strongly about it. Funny that. Its like trying to explain software engineering to someone unfamiliar with it. they get the base concepts, but the execution isn't really there at all. And then you get some who did a bit in high school or wrote some simple software, without understanding how really professional software engineering works.

Bottom line, Oversimplification is nice for a general idea, but it really doesn't help you understand it.

You continue to be wrong. Even if I do nothing with my money and I put it into the bank, the only way banks can earn a profit is by loaning it back out thus creating economic growth. If the banks are buying up tbills so the federal government can spend, this reduces investing in the private sector, where long term economic policies are made and badly needed.

Right now this country should be flush with capital, there should be so much spending and investing taking place in the private sector because the interest rates are almost non existant, but there isnt.. Why? Because no one is going to loan money out to invest when they can buy up debt and yeild a return thats tax exempt.

[Mircea]

Originally Posted by greywar

blah blah blah

So "zero level economy" get a grand total of...7 hits in Google-and they all seem to point to you mircea.

Then read the text books.

I guess it never occurred to you that the author of a text book cannot get $140 for the textbook from a university student if the textbook is on-line for free.

Originally Posted by greywar

I suspect you mean a subsistence level economy. Yes im sure we all want to live in that economy. Feel free. Fortunately I live in a well developed economy, which has serious possibilities of experiencing a post scarcity future. Why not discuss reality?

We cannot discuss reality because you lack sufficient knowledge, as well as Critical Thinking Skills.

I never said anything about wanting to live in an economy based on Subsistence Agriculture, which is what a 1st Phase Zero Level Economy is.

There is 0% unemployment, because every single person must work in order to provide enough food to survive. Such economies are often at near-famine conditions. And, yes, children must work, too, or people will die of starvation.

And for the record.....such economies exist in the Here & Now.

Originally Posted by greywar

What causes unemployment? Be more specific, structural, natural? Or just in general? If you're hoping for one answer theres more. many more. But I suspect you're thinking poor utilization of resources.

Technology causes unemployment.

The lowly stick....someone became Surplus Labor when a simple stick was used to put holes in the ground to drop seed, since using a stick is faster and easier than using your fingers.

Granted, in a 1st Phase Zero Level Economy, Surplus Labor will be readily absorbed back into agriculture, but that's not the point. The point is that eventually -- through technology -- you will create Surplus Labor. What do you do with it?

That depends.....on geology, geography, topography, demographics, climate and culture, to name but a few things...hereinafter known as The Variablesâ„¢.

If you understand that, then you can understand why the world is the way it is...ie Realityâ„¢.

The last Phase of a Zero Level Economy is the development of Surplus Food. The Surplus Food may be stored or traded --- depending on The Variablesâ„¢. If you have contact with no other economies, then you will not be doing any trading. We know for a fact that Surplus Food in some societies resulted in a population explosion, leading to the collapse of the society, because once the Surplus Food was consumed they were not able to match production to feed the Surplus Population.

We also know that some societies solved that problem through exploration. That is especially true of Pacific Islanders who established a settlement on the west coast of South America in what is now northern Chile circa 35,000 BCE.

That would be a cultural thing. If your culture has no taboos against exploration, then you will; but if your culture says the Earth is flat and you'll sail over the edge and fall into Hell, then you won't be exploring squat.

See how that works?

What do you do with the Surplus Labor? Again, that depends on The Variablesâ„¢.

If you have access to coal, tin, copper, lead, bismuth, silver, gold, iron, timber, salt, phosphates and other minerals, you can start extracting them, provided you know how to extract them, and you have the tools and sufficient Surplus Labor to engage in the 1st Phase of your 1st Level Economy.

If you don't have access, then you will stagnate at the Zero Level, which is what happened to most of the societies in sub-Saharan Africa, Central Asia, Southwest and Southeast Asia, and the Americas.

See how that works?

That red stuff running along the hillsides, that's iron ore. Let's assume you can extract it, and that there is a more advanced economy with whom you can trade. Your Surplus Labor has now been absorbed into these new jobs associated with the extraction and transportation of iron ore.

But then technology allows you to extract ore at higher rates of production, creating Surplus Labor. Now what?

Assuming you have the knowledge and the equipment, you could use your Surplus Labor to pre-process the iron ore, crushing it and separating the aggregate from the ore. However, as you resolved your problem of Surplus Labor, you just generated Surplus Labor with your trading partner. The Labor they had working in pre-processing are now out of a job.

See how that works?

Originally Posted by greywar

Actually Im very good at this.

No, you're not.

If you were good at this, then you would understand that the Great Depression was caused by Surplus Labor created through the use of new technology, in addition to better manufacturing processes and methods, and that there was no place for this Surplus Labor to go, until WWII happened.

Your inability to understand that is the reason you cannot comprehend your current predicament.

You have lots of Surplus Labor, and no place for it to go.

This Surplus Labor was generated by emerging-States and developing-States moving into their 2nd Level Economies -- Heavy Industry -- displacing your workers. When those emerging-States and developing-States start moving into their 3rd Level Economy -- Light or "Clean" Industry --- they'll create even more Surplus Labor in your economy.

Actually, there is a place for your Surplus Labor: the 5th Level Economy, which is R&D. Every manufacturing job you lost out of your 2nd Level Economy should have been replaced by a job in the 5th Level R&D Economy, except that Liberals destroyed the education system, so you are unable to do that for at least 20 more years.

Originally Posted by greywar

Probably one of the only reasonable posts lately. The answer is...it depends.

I'm flattered that you're quoting me.

Originally Posted by dv1033

Sounds like you just got schooled in Keynesians economics, high govt spending when the economy is down and low when it's up.

Keynesian Economics fails.

It's predicated on the false belief that government spending ended the Great Depression, when in fact there is no evidence to support that.

Obviously, you don't understand Keynesian Economics. First, Keynes never advocated blanket spending. What Keynes advocated was that government target spending in those sectors of the economy to create jobs where Capital is currently underutilized.

Was Obama's Stimu-Loss based on Keynesian Theory?

No, unless you can prove that teachers, fire-fighters, community groups and union construction workers were being underutilized.

Second, Keynesian Theory falsely assumes that government knows exactly which goods and services in any economic sector are being underutilized, requiring an injection of Capital from government spending.

Keynesian Economics fails, because government can never know which sectors are being underutilized, and even that wouldn't be so bad, except for the fact that the government is never accurately able to predict shifts in Capital from dead or dead-weight sectors of the economy.

You just got schooled.

Originally Posted by greywar

I didn't come here to argue your sophomoric arguments.

Then stop making them...

Mircea