U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Covid-19 Information Page
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics
 [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 07-04-2012, 09:15 AM
 
Location: Ohio
22,798 posts, read 16,024,403 times
Reputation: 19289

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Padgett2 View Post
Really....WHERE do you get the money to pay for this?
From the Money Fairy of course.

Story-telling...

Mircea

Quote:
Originally Posted by freemkt View Post
How do broke unemployed people build a business of their own?
Why don't you ask the four founders of Qualcomm, who were broke, unemployed, older and working out of their garage?

Historically...

Mircea

Quote:
Originally Posted by ambient View Post
Each economic philosophy has its drawbacks. Pure capitalism is not ideal...
Of course it's ideal, however, if I had a preference, I'd prefer the State own natural resources.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ambient View Post
With a capitalist foundation, you run the risk of more boom-bust cycles,...
Property theories have bearing on Boom-Bust Cycles. All property theories, Capitalism, Feudalism, Communism and Socialism experience Boom-Bust Cycles, so that only proves property theories play no role, other than exasperating bad economic conditions. A Capitalist country will exit a recession or depression faster than any other property theory.

Economic systems have no bearing either. Whether its a Free Market System, Command System, Traditional System, or an Hybrid, it is still subject to Boom-Bust Cycles.

Economically...


Mircea

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trackwatch View Post
Post WW2 saw the largest world wide growth in history.
And why is that?

Could it be because the rest of the world was in shambles, with millions dead, millions more injured, $Billions in property damage, the infrastructure destroyed, the manufacturing base destroyed, the agricultural base destroyed, and the governments swimming in debt?

Why yes, that is exactly why.

And then of course, the US barred countries from developing, which meant that those countries could not compete against the US and get a slice of the pie that God has ordained solely for Americans.

Realistically...


Mircea
Rate this post positively Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-05-2012, 12:01 AM
 
1,566 posts, read 2,909,912 times
Reputation: 1262
if you think unemployment is bad now i can only imagine how many people will refuse to work when they are getting 3k a month tax free to do nothing
making more people dependent on the govt adds to the problem
Rate this post positively Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-05-2012, 08:29 AM
 
Location: Victoria TX
42,661 posts, read 78,680,450 times
Reputation: 36342
Quote:
Originally Posted by Padgett2 View Post
Sooooo, suppose we find out that are a lot more people that would rather not work than those that do. But everyone gets paid.

Who is going to work enough to pay the tax (and that's what it would be) to pay for those that just sit around, sleep late and enjoy life? Where do you plan to get the money?

A tax, no matter what you call it, is when you take money from one person's pocket and give it to another person with no reward for the first person.

Really....WHERE do you get the money to pay for this?
We already live in a country where a huge majority of people would prefer to not work. But they do, because they want the things they can buy when they have working income.

It wouldn't necessarily have to be a tax. If the unemployment rate is 10%, corporations could simply be required to pay a wage to 110 people for every 100 workers they need, the extra ten receiving a sustaining partial salary, to stay home and wait for the increased productivity demand to justify their work.

Where would they get the money? Reread the OP. They borrow it, which is the same place they get all their other working capital. How is it that wars and research and industrial expansion and public works and moon landings are worth borrowing for, but housing and food on the table for the people are not?

Everybody seems to have a starting point at which the corporation is insulated against fluctuating economic risk, but the work force is not. Who ever said that was carved in stone? Try starting with the workforce, the populace (instead of corporations), being paramount to national wellbeing, and work it out from there, and see if you come up with different answers.

If you were a farmer, would you feed your horse in a season when there was no plowing to be done?
Rate this post positively Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-05-2012, 09:01 AM
 
Location: Ohio
22,798 posts, read 16,024,403 times
Reputation: 19289
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea View Post
Property theories have bearing on Boom-Bust Cycles. All property theories, Capitalism, Feudalism, Communism and Socialism experience Boom-Bust Cycles, so that only proves property theories play no role, other than exasperating bad economic conditions. A Capitalist country will exit a recession or depression faster than any other property theory.

Economic systems have no bearing either. Whether its a Free Market System, Command System, Traditional System, or an Hybrid, it is still subject to Boom-Bust Cycles.
Made a mistake there, it should Property Theories have no bearing whatsoever on Boom-Bust Cycles, just clarify that.

Mistakenly...


Mircea

Quote:
Originally Posted by jtur88 View Post
How is it that wars and research and industrial expansion and public works and moon landings are worth borrowing for, but housing and food on the table for the people are not?
Because "I give you $10,000 and you give me nothing in return" is total a fail, which is what you're asking for here.

What Krugman et al, and many on this forum have done is engage in a Straw Man Fallacy by misrepresenting the position.

It isn't spending that grows anything, it is investing. Learn and understand the difference between spending and investing.

The government invests $1 or in the alternative, the government goes into debt $1 in order to invest $1, and the government gets a return on that money, meaning more than $1 in return, that is what was meant.

December 31, 2001
National Debt $5.94 TRILLION
Real GDP $11.35 TRILLION

March 30, 2012
National Debt $15.6 TRILLION
Real GDP $13.4 TRILLION

Percentage increase in National Debt over that period:
($15.6 - $5.94) / $5.94 * 100 = 162.62%

Percentage increase in Real GDP over that period:
($13.4 - $11.35) / $11.35 * 100 = 18.06%

Effectively, for every $9.00 in tax payer dollars you over-spent, you got $1 in GDP. That period covers both Bush the Younger and The Boy King™.

December 31, 2008
National Debt $10.7 TRILLION
Real GDP $13.2 TRILLION

March 30, 2012
National Debt $15.6 TRILLION
Real GDP $13.4 TRILLION

Percentage increase in National Debt over that period:
($15.6 - $10.7) / $10.7 * 100 = 44.86%

Percentage increase in Real GDP over that period:
($13.4 - $13.2) / $13.2 * 100 = 1.51%

Effectively, for every $29.71 in tax payer dollars you over-spent, you got $1 in GDP.

Investing works, but spending does not. Those rates, $9 of debt for every $1 of GDP and $29 of debt for ever $1 of GDP are unsustainable in both the short and long terms.

In what way financially is a person or a corporation different than a government?

There's no difference. Act stupidly, and eventually your creditors will cut you off, and then you cannot go further into debt as a person, as a corporation or as a country -- like Greece.

When you get cut-off, and you eventually will, you will face Austerity™ whether you like it or not; whether you want it or not.

Now, you can take action now using Austerity™ to get your house in order, or it will be put in order for you, and you will not like the way that is done. In other words, you need to take action while you still have control over the situation, because once the situation is out of control, there is nothing to be done except wait and let things be that they may, and that could take years, even decades.

Is there nothing to be done? Well, not entirely. As a person, you could counterfeit checks and money. As a corporation, you can counterfeit goods, and as a government, you can also counterfeit money by inflating its value, but in every instance, there are extreme risks and no advantages, and in the end....you still lose.

You cannot defy the Laws of Economics any more than you can cheat Fate.

Economically...

Mircea
Rate this post positively Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-05-2012, 03:45 PM
 
2,553 posts, read 2,154,712 times
Reputation: 1349
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea View Post
Made a mistake there, it should Property Theories have no bearing whatsoever on Boom-Bust Cycles, just clarify that.

Mistakenly...


Mircea



Because "I give you $10,000 and you give me nothing in return" is total a fail, which is what you're asking for here.

What Krugman et al, and many on this forum have done is engage in a Straw Man Fallacy by misrepresenting the position.

It isn't spending that grows anything, it is investing. Learn and understand the difference between spending and investing.

The government invests $1 or in the alternative, the government goes into debt $1 in order to invest $1, and the government gets a return on that money, meaning more than $1 in return, that is what was meant.

December 31, 2001
National Debt $5.94 TRILLION
Real GDP $11.35 TRILLION

March 30, 2012
National Debt $15.6 TRILLION
Real GDP $13.4 TRILLION

Percentage increase in National Debt over that period:
($15.6 - $5.94) / $5.94 * 100 = 162.62%

Percentage increase in Real GDP over that period:
($13.4 - $11.35) / $11.35 * 100 = 18.06%

Effectively, for every $9.00 in tax payer dollars you over-spent, you got $1 in GDP. That period covers both Bush the Younger and The Boy King™.

December 31, 2008
National Debt $10.7 TRILLION
Real GDP $13.2 TRILLION

March 30, 2012
National Debt $15.6 TRILLION
Real GDP $13.4 TRILLION

Percentage increase in National Debt over that period:
($15.6 - $10.7) / $10.7 * 100 = 44.86%

Percentage increase in Real GDP over that period:
($13.4 - $13.2) / $13.2 * 100 = 1.51%

Effectively, for every $29.71 in tax payer dollars you over-spent, you got $1 in GDP.

Investing works, but spending does not. Those rates, $9 of debt for every $1 of GDP and $29 of debt for ever $1 of GDP are unsustainable in both the short and long terms.

In what way financially is a person or a corporation different than a government?

There's no difference. Act stupidly, and eventually your creditors will cut you off, and then you cannot go further into debt as a person, as a corporation or as a country -- like Greece.

When you get cut-off, and you eventually will, you will face Austerity™ whether you like it or not; whether you want it or not.

Now, you can take action now using Austerity™ to get your house in order, or it will be put in order for you, and you will not like the way that is done. In other words, you need to take action while you still have control over the situation, because once the situation is out of control, there is nothing to be done except wait and let things be that they may, and that could take years, even decades.

Is there nothing to be done? Well, not entirely. As a person, you could counterfeit checks and money. As a corporation, you can counterfeit goods, and as a government, you can also counterfeit money by inflating its value, but in every instance, there are extreme risks and no advantages, and in the end....you still lose.

You cannot defy the Laws of Economics any more than you can cheat Fate.

Economically...

Mircea
Your comment on austerity reminds me of the Laffer Curve in that the commentary on both only makes sense in extreme cases. Yes, eventually you face austerity in extreme cases, such as Greece.

Austerity doesn't work in the modern world. Take, for instance, our current condition; the states have cut back spending drastically, leaving many individuals unemployed in the process. The consequence has been a prolonging of the recovery because all those unemployed former government workers aren't buying things. This has significantly pushed down demand for consumer goods. Without that demand, companies have no reason to increase supplies. Without a reason to increase supplies, they have no reason to hire new workers. Suddenly, we're in a situation where no one is spending because no one is being hired because no one is spending. But, this could have been averted by not taking austerity measures and thereby not leaving former government workers unemployed.

This, actually, connects back to your point "It isn't spending that grows anything, it is investing." Spending grows the economy a lot, to the point of overheating and bubbles. Investing grows the economy long term. Not spending, however, certainly can mean stagnation, even contraction.
Rate this post positively Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-06-2012, 08:45 AM
 
Location: Victoria TX
42,661 posts, read 78,680,450 times
Reputation: 36342
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea View Post
engage in a Straw Man Fallacy
One of the three classic devices of the debater who has been soundly defeated. The other two are "Nice try" and "Apples and Oranges". All three of which translate as "My mind is made up, and all data either supports my position, or is irrelevant". Faced with any one of those three, one just shrugs and stops presenting data.
Rate this post positively Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-06-2012, 09:43 PM
 
Location: None of your business
5,466 posts, read 4,007,745 times
Reputation: 1172
Quote:
Originally Posted by SOON2BNSURPRISE View Post

Just about everything that you are advocating has been tried since Obama became President. He has been trying to buy our way out of the recession.

Agree, and he wants to try spending even more money to buy us out of recession. It didn't work the first time and will not work another time. AND we are on the cusp of another recession.

You do realize that 99 weeks of unemployment is not normal?

LOL, but 99 days of unemployment is normal in Obama land. What happened to all the jobs he promised to create? Government can not create jobs you know, its the people and companies. All government does is create or destroy the atmosphere for creating jobs. This administration failed miserably.

Putting all that money out there to stimulate the economy has done little to stimulate the economy.

All the spending did is create uber debt and did NOT stimulate the economy.

Why not let the market take care of itself? People will create new business operations that will make money, grow, and hire new people. In my area I have seen companies do just that. They have a product that people want and recession or no recession people are buying what they have to sell.

The public sector always does a better job than the government. The government needs to get out of the Americans way.
You can not spend your way out of a disaster.
Rate this post positively Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-06-2012, 11:23 PM
 
2,553 posts, read 2,154,712 times
Reputation: 1349
Quote:
Originally Posted by eRayP View Post
You can not spend your way out of a disaster.
Your highlights suggest a gross misunderstanding of economics, governance, and politics.

You can, very easily, spend your way out of a financial depression or recession if you are a government with a central bank. Why? Because you print the money. Sure, you risk inflation, but that's hardly the nearest threat at the moment.

But, if the federal government doesn't spend enough to offset failures elsewhere (ie, the private sector or the states), then you run in to the problem we have now, an insufficient demand for goods.

No, you don't spend hapharzardly on any project. That would be foolish and wouldn't see good returns on that spending. But, look at the layoffs by the states; those former workers, of whom there are many, aren't spending money. That's an opportunity to spend money effectively and see good returns on that spending. That's putting people to work who serve the public good. Double points.

The stimulus some individuals like to hold against the Obama administration, ignoring it was passed in to law before the administration came in to office, was smaller than economists, in general, would have liked. When you go to the doctor for a bacterial infection, the doctor gives you antibiotics. If you only take one dose, you're not going to kill the infection. That, though, is exactly what we did; as a country, we took one dose, then turned around and asked "Why aren't we better?"
Rate this post positively Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-07-2012, 02:14 AM
 
Location: None of your business
5,466 posts, read 4,007,745 times
Reputation: 1172
Quote:
Originally Posted by darkeconomist View Post
Your highlights suggest a gross misunderstanding of economics, governance, and politics.

You can, very easily, spend your way out of a financial depression or recession if you are a government with a central bank. Why? Because you print the money. Sure, you risk inflation, but that's hardly the nearest threat at the moment.

But, if the federal government doesn't spend enough to offset failures elsewhere (ie, the private sector or the states), then you run in to the problem we have now, an insufficient demand for goods.
Your kidding. I would love to hear the plan, print and spend more money, economy remains in bad shape, as you say, he needs to spend more money ok, then what happens. This is not a doctors visit so show me your action and timelines to a better economy ole wise one.


Quote:
Originally Posted by darkeconomist View Post
Your highlights suggest a gross misunderstanding of economics, governance, and politics.
No, you don't spend hapharzardly on any project.
You mean like on projects like Solyndra, isn'tt that 4-5 failures so far? Now he new investment in Africa.

Quote:
The stimulus some individuals like to hold against the Obama administration, ignoring it was passed in to law before the administration came in to office
And after almost 4 years you still blame a previous administration. Ok so tell me, he promised to fix the mess and he didn't therefor I blame Obama for not keeping that promise and fixing it.
Rate this post positively Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-07-2012, 02:29 AM
 
Location: None of your business
5,466 posts, read 4,007,745 times
Reputation: 1172
Please tell Obama's his timeline for success? How long will it be? What is the plan and how will it work?
Rate this post positively 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.


 
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 > Economics
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2021, 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