What have you learned from the current economic collapse? (employment, $50k, jobs)

[petch751]

Originally Posted by Emigrations

Precisely. Companies are generally not expanding due to a lack of demand and an ability to get more output from existing resources. Once the productivity gains from existing resources are maxed out, expansion will have to occur to meet demand. When (or if) this happens is anyone's guess.

The low mortgage interest rates are good, at least on paper, but many decent prospective buyers that would have qualified before the crash can't get loans. The low rates are artificially goosing prices in some markets. In the hot areas, housing prices to household income ratios are also getting a bit too frothy. Meanwhile, bad areas like mine are still seeing price declines.

The long and short of it is the demand side of the equation still isn't there. Many consumers have had their incomes cut to the point that subsistence, not discretionary spending, is the focus. The government should have done aggressive demand-side stimulus when the recession. What we received was inadequate.

Companies are NOT expanding. Workers to do more and have been laid off, while these big corporations sit on huge piles of cash. The government props up the economy with printing and low in interest rates. As a result demand for product or services are reduced and in a downward spiral the economy goes.

Did you notice the only thing growing is Government?

[petch751]

Originally Posted by Linda_d

The Works Progress Administration (WPA), the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC), and the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) put millions of the unemployed to work in the 1930s building public buildings, improving national and state parks, and building dams to control flooding and produce electricity. Maybe we need similar programs. There is certainly plenty of infrastructure in the US that needs repair and improvement.

I posted this about 2 months ago when discussing welfare. A bunch of liberal cd members went bouncing off walls. I had to laugh when one of them said "well then it wouldn't be welfare would it" as if how dare I suggest that people on welfare have to work on improving our infrastructure.

[gwynedd1]

Originally Posted by icicles

I have learned that politicians and the federal reserve are stupid as hell.

Growth comes from low taxes and low government spending. Expansion comes from savings and investment.

What do I see? The opposite. I see government expanding, more deficit spending, increased money supply, horrible growth, high unemployment, and an economy that is building up around very low interest rates which in a free market controlled interest rates which would be higher, we would have different sectors growing.

basically they are doubling down and growing even larger bubbles. Greenspan had rates down at 1% for a year or so and blew up a housing bubble.

Just imagine what 5 years of rates at 0% will do?

You deserve to have the city sewer back up into your living room. While it is often contextually true, and most easy money comes from the misplaced authority of government, it a painful thing to watch this kind of ignorance of the social contract.

[Serious Conversation]

Originally Posted by petch751

Companies are NOT expanding. Workers to do more and have been laid off, while these big corporations sit on huge piles of cash. The government props up the economy with printing and low in interest rates. As a result demand for product or services are reduced and in a downward spiral the economy goes.

Did you notice the only thing growing is Government?

You're talking out of both sides of your mouth. You're arguing for more stimulus to increase demand, but are claiming that the only thing growing is government. Actually, government employment is declining, has been for some time, and will likely continue to do so if the current trend toward fiscal hawkishness is maintained.

A Record Decline in Government Jobs: Implications for the Economy and America’s Workforce *»* Papers *»* The Hamilton Project

[gwynedd1]

Originally Posted by petch751

I posted this about 2 months ago when discussing welfare. A bunch of liberal cd members went bouncing off walls. I had to laugh when one of them said "well then it wouldn't be welfare would it" as if how dare I suggest that people on welfare have to work on improving our infrastructure.

Why should they? since I have gotten nowhere with "Conservatives" perhaps I will have to make due with them and encourage them not to work until all taxes on labor are removed.


Are you familiar with the Corvée ?

It was unpaid public works on public projects.

The funny thing is during the French revolution it was noticed that it was a feudal privilege to have tenet farmer build infrastructure resulting in rising values for land.

So you would like "workers" to build infrastructure that will result only in rising land values all the while this labor force will be taxed on their labor?

I would sit it out and suck on the welfare state, and encouraging mouldering infrastructure that a share cropping populace has no stake in.


In this state in the battle of privilege, welfare vs landed gentry, I find few friend among the living. I have to be content with the grave more full of consistency, genuis and moral fiber than anyone living.

Anne Robert Jacques Turgot


Anne Robert Jacques Turgot - Palace of Versailles

Turgot, the son of a merchants’ provost, was born in Paris in 1727. He became the prior of the Sorbonne in 1749 but two years later he decided against taking holy orders and joined the Parliament of Paris, where he held various positions until purchasing the office of maître des requêtes (a position at the council of State) in 1753. He worked with Vincent de Gournay, the intendant of commerce and a fierce advocate of economic freedom, accompanying him on his tours of the provinces. Turgot was close to the physiocrats, wrote articles for the encyclopaedia and in 1760 became friends with Voltaire. The next year he was appointed intendant (tax collector) of the Limoges district, giving him an opportunity to put his liberal ideas into practice: he established a land survey, abolished the corvée, fought against poverty, built roads and canals to improve the movement of grain, set up factories, etc. In 1774 Louis XVI, who had just ascended to the throne, appointed him controller-general of finance. On 24 August he wrote the famous letter where laying out his financial policy to fund the structural reforms the kingdom needed: “No bankruptcy, no tax increases, no borrowing.” Turgot’s policy of cutting expenses lowered the deficit and increased credit by 1775. Faithful to his liberal ideas, he abolished price controls on and established free trade in grain. But a poor harvest led to a rise in the price of bread; riots broke out in the provinces and around Paris. In 1776 Turgot met with stern opposition from the powerful craft guilds when he established freedom of enterprise and competition. He ran into further trouble by replacing the corvée en nature, by which peasants were required to turn part of the fruits of their labour over to the noblemen whose land they worked, with a tax on the landowners. The measures were unpopular with the people as well as the privileged classes, weakening his position. At the behest of the queen and the minister Maurepas, Turgot resigned on 12 May 1776 and devoted the rest of his life to works on economy, literature and physics. He died of gout in 1781 at the age of 54.

Find it odd how much free trade is embraced by Conservatives? Yet the idea they co-opted is strangely missing something else.


Free trade?
Infrastructure?
Anti-union?
Taxes on landed privilege?


No politician has this platform. Not one.

And why so inspired? He was desperately trying to save the French state, but it was too late. Guess where we are headed?


Yep, I am hated by both sides too. I can confirm that welfare liberals with their identity politics hate me about as much as those calling for the neo-Corvee who want more property tax relief while having no complaints about SS with holding, excise taxes and income taxes and mortgage interest all adding dead weight on all capital formation.

So until labor and capital are untaxed ,and shifted on the land owners and bankers who will benefit from rising land values, they should refuse it.

[petch751]

Originally Posted by Emigrations

You're talking out of both sides of your mouth. You're arguing for more stimulus to increase demand, but are claiming that the only thing growing is government. Actually, government employment is declining, has been for some time, and will likely continue to do so if the current trend toward fiscal hawkishness is maintained.

A Record Decline in Government Jobs: Implications for the Economy and America’s Workforce *»* Papers *»* The Hamilton Project

The last thing I am arguing for is more stimulus. Get government out of our hair.

[thedwightguy]

I've learned its about the re-allocation of capital into fewer and fewer hands.
And about who's in charge.
No college courses cover that.

[icicles]

Originally Posted by gwynedd1

You deserve to have the city sewer back up into your living room. While it is often contextually true, and most easy money comes from the misplaced authority of government, it a painful thing to watch this kind of ignorance of the social contract.

Great argument.

So if an Alien came down from space and we had to give both sides of this argument. Mine which says,

growth comes from low government spending and low taxes, and investment and savings builds businesses.


Your awesome response is I should have a city sewer back up into my living room?

Explain to me how I am wrong about my statement?

Does lower taxes and lower government spending not increase wealth of those in society who make it?


Would I rather dump a few trillion dollars on wars? How about 186 or so F22 planes, I mean we could easily have a threat from some 1980's planes from iran (HAHAHHAA).

How about all the ground missile defense missiles I built at Boeing..seriously do we need these?

How about all the spending on massive bridges that are built in states who has a senator or some rep vote for it because it was their hometown?

[gwynedd1]

Originally Posted by icicles

Great argument.

So if an Alien came down from space and we had to give both sides of this argument. Mine which says,

Are those aliens sentient parasites?

growth comes from low government spending and low taxes, and investment and savings builds businesses.


Your awesome response is I should have a city sewer back up into my living room?

Explain to me how I am wrong about my statement?

I did. Can't you smell the stink?

Does lower taxes and lower government spending not increase wealth of those in society who make it?

Inherently, absolutely not. I am not really into platitudes with no context that specifically go nowhere. Having been raised a conservative Republican as a child, I think I have heard it quite enough.

Would I rather dump a few trillion dollars on wars? How about 186 or so F22 planes, I mean we could easily have a threat from some 1980's planes from iran (HAHAHHAA).

Weapons are largely made from private companies.

How about all the ground missile defense missiles I built at Boeing..seriously do we need these?

Boeing isn't the government. Indeed it is public money and government contracts are often the worst rip off of all. I'll grant you that, but then large industry also spends a good deal of its profits on government influence. That is why they gave the name "Mercantilism" , as a quality of government.

How about all the spending on massive bridges that are built in states who has a senator or some rep vote for it because it was their hometown?

What about people who buy 100k super cars? Are those really needed? What about McMansion 's with FIRE sector bloat? All "private".


Let me tell you where we really disagree. There is no such thing as no government as long as anything controls habitable spaces. If I were on a sidewalk surrounded by large, private estates with fences, dogs , and guard towers such that I could not set foot in but 1 square foot of "public space" per 10,000 , its da guberment. The only difference between that one is you can't vote.

So there cannot be more or less government. There is only the particular quality. Now I could say it again, over and over again here or I could just refer to the authors of the enlightenment and classical economic theories presented as to the social contract that I advocate.

[tickyul]

This country does not have the willingness or ability to TRULY fix it's massive problems.