Why do Republicans pretend to believe in economics? (accuse, Clinton, how much)

[jetgraphics]

eCONomics and eCONomists?
You are joking, right?

eCONomics is not a science, but a warped belief system that is enamored with fantasy.

Proof?
Their unit of measure, currency, is based on a variable that changes in value.
They embrace usury which is mathematically unsustainable in a finite money token system.
They spout nonsensical figures that can never correlate with reality...

To illustrate:

FRB: How much U.S. currency is in circulation?
Q: How much U.S. currency is in circulation?
A: There was approximately $1.4 trillion in circulation as of February 18, 2016, of which $1.38 trillion was in Federal Reserve notes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financ..._United_States
● ". . . The financial position of the United States includes assets of at least $269.6 trillion and debts of $145.8 trillion to produce a net worth of at least $123.8 trillion."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_U...federal_budget
● 2015 Federal Budget $3.58 trillion (expenditures)
● 2015 Federal Deficit $ 438.9 billion (borrowed)
● . . . versus . . .
● $1.38 trillion in circulation.

https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BUDGET...T-2015-BUD.pdf
● 2015 Federal Deficit $312 billion (estimate)
● 2015 Debt Service $252 billion (estimate)
● 2015 Unified budget deficit $564 billion (estimate)
● 2015 Gross Domestic Product $18,454 billion (estimate)
● . . . versus . . .
● $1.38 trillion in circulation.

Recent Asteroid fly-by valued at 5.4+ trillions in platinum.
http://www.rt.com/news/310170-platin...d-2011-uw-158/

How can you claim measurements that exceed the known total of circulating monies?

If Amancio Ortega, Carlos Slim Helu, Warren Buffet, Bill Gates, and a consortium of billionaires walked into the offices of the largest bank on the planet, and asked for a loan of 20 trillion dollar bills with which to fund mining asteroids worth 300 times that value and were more than willing to pay 15% interest, the bank would have to decline.
WHY?

The.Money.Does.Not.Exist.

A. There aren’t enough dollar bills
B. You can’t just “print them up” - CONgress has no power to create money (See: Art. 1, Sec. 8, and Sec. 10, USCON)
C. Dollar bills are debt-credit authorized by CONgress’ deficit spending (See: Title 12 USC Sec. 411)
D. They are part of the national debt (19+ trillion) and paper notes cannot pay it off (debt cannot pay debt - minus added to minus is more minus)
E. Which are underwritten by 320 million human resources, via FICA, and whose cash value keeps dwindling (which may explain why government is willing to encourage millions of illegal aliens to invade - and once given amnesty, get entered into the rolls of “contributors” equally liable on that impossible to repay debt)
F. And this fraudulent public debt cannot be challenged because of clause 4, 14th amendment, USCON.

So when you hear a politician promise to “balance the budget,” you know he’s a liar, an idiot, or both. And when you hear any eCONomist prattle on about “understanding the money system,” “managing debt” and “best investments,” you know he’s barking mad.

Remember, if CONgress has no power to create money (coining bullion does not equate to creating bullion), it cannot give that power to anyone else. And if CONgress had the power, why would it need to BORROW money?

So exactly WHO does have POWER to make a medium of exchange with which to facilitate trade when simple barter is insufficient ?
And can the exercise of such a POWER be subject to government, instituted to secure endowed RIGHTS?
When you can answer that, you won’t be fooled by the masters of money madness.

[Goinback2011]

Go for it Millenial Berners.

For retirees, whether you or some newly legalized immigrant has a job is immaterial. Their social security taxes are just as good as yours. Enjoy your mom's basement.

[lifeexplorer]

Originally Posted by Logicist027

Immigration is immigration. If anything by your own argument immigration would lower the labor cost and thereby keep jobs in America. Because it's illegal its even better for the average American because we don't have to give them as much stuff. Do you honestly think that you can hire a native born American at a reasonable cost to produce fruit in the central valley of California? Of course not! Without immigrants some jobs would just go extinct. Does anyone seriously believe that we are going to see a surge of native born Americans pushing lawn mowers?

Secondly you make the classic failure in economics by equating jobs to wealth. So let me ask you since you seem to not like China, how about all of this cheap oil that we are getting as a result of Saudi Arabia dumping oil? I don't see average people complaining that we are just being terribly treated by all of this cheap gasoline. If only we could be paying $5 a gallon then things would be great! Sure this is bad for the frackers in North Dakota, but it is good for the average American.

There is plenty of work to be done. We need to spend literally trillions updating our infrastructure, build more homes for people so that the price can be affordable for the average man and make our living spaces more artistic and beautiful. So if China or Japan would like to give us a hand by giving us cheap steel to do so, we should do the smart thing, take the steel and build more.

Or you could live in a massively polluted area like China where they have some of the worst air quality in the world. When they go to sleep at night they can rest assured knowing that they have worked like a dog all day so that their government could keep worthless pieces of paper and give Americans the fruit of their labor.

Are you telling me you and criminals are the same? No, illegal is illegal. It's not the same as legal immigration. It's a great insult to every legal immigrant like myself.

[rbohm]

Originally Posted by Logicist027

Whenever the talk of the minimum wage comes up, Republicans want to quote economics as a rationale for not moving the minimum wage. However they don't seem to want to accept general opinion from almost everyone on:

Immigration: Net small positive for Americans

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...t-immigration/

Free trade: More free trade is a good thing. Stop with the anti-China mercantilism.

Negative externalities: Pollution is a market failure. Even Milton friedman supported taxes to support the environment. He likely would have supported carbon taxes.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KH0O_JjH06k


So why do Republicans go against immigration, trade & block pollution taxes?

understand first that anytime you increase the operating costs of a business, you increase the price of anything they produce. increase wages, increase the price. increase taxes increase the price. add regulations increase the price.

now add in things like so called free trade, where other countries can dump their cheap products here and pay no import tariffs. so now you not only hve increased the cost of a US doing business here, but LOWERED the cost of a foreign country doing business here, which does what? thats right it puts pressure on US businesses to LOWER their costs by what ever means they can, such as laying off workers, reducing portion size, moving production off shore, etc.

so now you have an option, you can either stop the so called free trade and force other countries to pay an import tariff, or you can help US businesses lower costs to remain competitive.

lets take tires for instance, when i bought mine last time, i would have preferred to buy american made tires(except firestones), but they were way above my budget. so i ended up buying japanese tires because they are well made and fit my budget. however too many people are buying the cheap chinese tires because they are cheap, even though they are also junk. put a tariff on those, and people will buy better tires instead.

[Quick Enough]

Originally Posted by Logicist027

Whenever the talk of the minimum wage comes up, Republicans want to quote economics as a rationale for not moving the minimum wage. However they don't seem to want to accept general opinion from almost everyone on:

Immigration: Net small positive for Americans

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...t-immigration/

Free trade: More free trade is a good thing. Stop with the anti-China mercantilism.

Negative externalities: Pollution is a market failure. Even Milton friedman supported taxes to support the environment. He likely would have supported carbon taxes.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KH0O_JjH06k


So why do Republicans go against immigration, trade & block pollution taxes?

As usual 1 single repub is quoted and many on the left like to claim republicanS

By YOUR reasoning, or lack thereof, I could say that dem are liars.Bill Clinton was found lying in court so therefore ALL dems are liars.

Thread fail.

[Quick Enough]

Originally Posted by Tominftl

I think your wrong. It's your Republican business owners who hire them so they can pay them below minimum wages. They wouldn't come here if they weren't given work! Use your head....

"It's your Republican business owners..."

PSST, MANY dems ALSO are business owners who do the same thing.

DON'T be so naive to be believe they don't!

Which cities that have "Sanctuary" for illegals are run by repubs and which are run by dems?

[whogo]

A higher percentage of Republicans favor free trade than Democrats. Look at the votes on NAFTA and every "free" trade agreement since.

The small net positive is highly controversial, thus the small. Since you mentioned Friedman let me quote him. " You can have open borders or you can have a welfare state. You cannot have both." I think Friedman knew a bit about economics.

As far as Friedman and the carbon tax:

https://www.masterresource.org/fried...imate-realist/

From that linK

What I did find was a blurb Friedman gave in 1999 to Thomas Gale Moore’s Climate of Fear: Why We Shouldn’t Worry About Global Warming:

This encyclopedic and even-handed survey of the evidence of global warming is a welcome corrective to the raging hysteria about the alleged dangers of global warming. Moore demonstrates conclusively that global warming is more likely to benefit than to harm the general public.

Thankfully, the manufactured myth of Friedman and a carbon tax was put to rest by Milton’s son, David Friedman, who recently blogged in part:

To [believe my father] would have favored a carbon tax requires … a reason to think that he would have believed that global warming due to CO2 emissions produced net negative externalities large enough to justify doing something about them. The problem with that claim is that warming can be expected to produce both negative externalities such as sea level rise and hotter summers and positive ones such as longer growing seasons and milder winters. The effects will be spread out over a long and uncertain future, making their size difficult to estimate.

My own conclusion, defended in past posts here (one example), is that the uncertainties are large enough so that one cannot sign the sum, cannot say whether the net effect will be positive or negative.

Total thread fail.

[whogo]

Originally Posted by rbohm

lets take tires for instance, when i bought mine last time, i would have preferred to buy american made tires(except firestones), but they were way above my budget. so i ended up buying japanese tires because they are well made and fit my budget. however too many people are buying the cheap chinese tires because they are cheap, even though they are also junk. put a tariff on those, and people will buy better tires instead.

Maybe we should let the individual consumer decide what is junk and what is not.

[GregW]

I am still trying to figure out what JETGRAPHICS is talking about. I suppose he means to have a scarce resource backed currency but I am not certain. JG what are you talking about?

So what is that bunch of zillionaires can't borrow enough money to capture a Platinum Asteroid? Even if they could the recovery of that much metal would drive the price so low that business would never make any profit. So why not let the governments create, by some economic magic, enough to pay everyone to go get the Platinum and share that metal when it is brought to some place it can be used. That would be useful to make pollution control devices on every coal fired power plant on the planet.

[OICU812]

Originally Posted by Logicist027

Whenever the talk of the minimum wage comes up, Republicans want to quote economics as a rationale for not moving the minimum wage. However they don't seem to want to accept general opinion from almost everyone on:

Immigration: Net small positive for Americans

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...t-immigration/

Free trade: More free trade is a good thing. Stop with the anti-China mercantilism.

Negative externalities: Pollution is a market failure. Even Milton friedman supported taxes to support the environment. He likely would have supported carbon taxes.

So why do Republicans go against immigration, trade & block pollution taxes?

Every state, whether it's run by republicans or not, already has a minimum wage. You just go off the rails if the repubs don't want the new, new, new minimum wage that some democrat politician might propose.

So called "free trade" with countries like China, who pay slave wages to their captive citizens, has caused a loss of American jobs and businesses.

Open borders, sanctuary cities, and anchor babies is not immigration, is a controlled invasion and a slow erosion of a nation's culture, traditions and sovereignty.