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.
It seems to me that "stupidity" is clinging to political dogma in the face of economic evidence. You don't like what the DATA says so you simply ignore it and claim it's simply short term. Well, you know what -it's DATA. It's WHAT'S HAPPENING. You clowns keep saying the same thing over and over and over again - and it just doesn't happen.
Wingnuts are constantly going on about the dollar collapsing.
Opps! Didn't happen.
Wingnuts are constantly going on about the stock market collapsing again.
Opps! Didn't happen.
Wingnuts are constantly going on about hyperinflation.
Opps! Didn't happen.
Wingnuts are constantly going on that housing prices are going to collapse all over again.
Opps! Didn't happen.
Wingnuts are constantly going on about economic collapse and chaos and revolution and the end of the US.
Opps! Didn't happen.
There's a REASON for all that - your economic model is WRONG. You are making all your predictions on POOR ASSUMPTIONS. You THINK you understand the economy but clearly you DON'T - so don't lecture me about "talking intelligently". You folks have been wrong about practically everything.
Get back to me when you can actually show something you've been predicting ACTUALLY HAPPENING.
Until then it's just a bunch of theoretical BS.
Ken
PS - New UE claims just fell to the LOWEST LEVEL IN 4 1/2 YEARS - which you will no doubt see as another sign of pending economic collapse.
I think this is why they want to go over the cliff: they want one of their religious prophesies to finally come true. If Obama can't be counted on to f*ck up the economy on his own, then they have no choice but to try and f*ck it up for him. And they just might succeed. They'll succeed until enough idiots in this country wake up and realize it's time to flush the republitard party down the drain at the polls.
I'm normally a believer in the two-party system, but right now, we need one-party rule - for at least a good ten years. We need a super majority. We needed one this past election, actually.
I think this is why they want to go over the cliff: they want one of their religious prophesies to finally come true. If Obama can't be counted on to f*ck up the economy on his own, then they have no choice but to try and f*ck it up for him. And they just might succeed. They'll succeed until enough idiots in this country wake up and realize it's time to flush the republitard party down the drain at the polls.
I'm normally a believer in the two-party system, but right now, we need one-party rule - for at least a good ten years. We need a super majority. We needed one this past election, actually.
Wow.... an advocate for Authoritarianism....
What's even more novel is implying that "after 10 years" that it would just revert to a democratic process LOL...
I think this is why they want to go over the cliff: they want one of their religious prophesies to finally come true. If Obama can't be counted on to f*ck up the economy on his own, then they have no choice but to try and f*ck it up for him. And they just might succeed. They'll succeed until enough idiots in this country wake up and realize it's time to flush the republitard party down the drain at the polls.
I'm normally a believer in the two-party system, but right now, we need one-party rule - for at least a good ten years. We need a super majority. We needed one this past election, actually.
If you haven't noticed we're in a global recession (or depression). Having a dictatorship for 10 years (ha on "limited dictatorship" idea) you're just fooling yourself.
It seems to me that "stupidity" is clinging to political dogma in the face of economic evidence. You don't like what the DATA says so you simply ignore it and claim it's simply short term. Well, you know what -it's DATA. It's WHAT'S HAPPENING. You clowns keep saying the same thing over and over and over again - and it just doesn't happen.
Wingnuts are constantly going on about the dollar collapsing.
Opps! Didn't happen.
Wingnuts are constantly going on about the stock market collapsing again.
Opps! Didn't happen.
Wingnuts are constantly going on about hyperinflation.
Opps! Didn't happen.
Wingnuts are constantly going on that housing prices are going to collapse all over again.
Opps! Didn't happen.
Wingnuts are constantly going on about economic collapse and chaos and revolution and the end of the US.
Opps! Didn't happen.
There's a REASON for all that - your economic model is WRONG. You are making all your predictions on POOR ASSUMPTIONS. You THINK you understand the economy but clearly you DON'T - so don't lecture me about "talking intelligently". You folks have been wrong about practically everything.
Get back to me when you can actually show something you've been predicting ACTUALLY HAPPENING.
Until then it's just a bunch of theoretical BS.
Ken
PS - New UE claims just fell to the LOWEST LEVEL IN 4 1/2 YEARS - which you will no doubt see as another sign of pending economic collapse.
Ken - can you stop mentioning short term indicators which are obviously going well and actually address the points I made? You don't seem to have any clue that it takes years, if not decades, for the true effects of fiscal decisions to take place.
Can you say at least one sentence about the current actions of the federal reserve? You have continually ignored that since this thread started. I am fairly sure you are ignoring it because you are flat-out ignorant about the dangers we are faced by its actions. Believe it or not, economists actually think about what current actions might affect the future, something you seem to have a very, very hard time doing. You seem to honestly think that the federal reserve managing risk in the housing market will lead to long term fiscal instability is 'theoretical', and you want me to take you seriously?
Obviously UE is low, obviously things look better today than they did four years ago. The government has taken steps to increase the liabilities on its books for the sake of short term economic growth. You are having a very, very hard time looking at long term indicators instead of 'state of the nation' indicators that do very little to predict long term economic health.
Also, using the term 'wingnuts' isn't helping you any. It makes you sound as intelligent as someone who says 'nobama' or something equally as stupid.
Obviously UE is low, obviously things look better today than they did four years ago. The government has taken steps to increase the liabilities on its books for the sake of short term economic growth. You are having a very, very hard time looking at long term indicators instead of 'state of the nation' indicators that do very little to predict long term economic health.
You haven't exactly presented practical ideas that would have helped in the short term, and long.
You haven't exactly presented practical ideas that would have helped in the short term, and long.
I don't think much of anything should be done to help us in the short term. We have a significant hole to dig ourselves out of, and that will require a bit of short term pain. Putting aside my typical attitude of leaning more conservative than I really am (because this board is so insanely left-leaning), here is what I would like to practically see done:
lower corporate tax rates. History has shown time and time again that lower corporate tax rates actually increase the net tax dollars collected from corporations
enact legislation to limit executive pay to stabilize internal corporate spending
cut spending in military by 60%
privatize SS in a phased approach. Everyone who has paid into the program will get the benefits promised them, but from now forward, SS is paid into and managed in market portfolios. This would cause significant deficits over the next several decades, but would work to even the governments balance sheet in the long term
increase early elegability age for SS to 65 immediately, to stay in effect until the system is fully privatized
limit UI to three months. as the beveridge curve has strongly indicated, increasing the length of UI does cause higher unemployment rates
healthcare: tort reform: it needs to be much more difficult to actually sue doctors and hospitals. additionally, insurance needs to be deregulated so that competition can exist across state lines. along with this, medicare spending must decrease. Give each state a set dollar amount to be spent on medicaid, and do not provide funds above and beyond. increase medicare B premiums to 35%, while raising medicare's eligibility age to 68, while reducing federal reimbursement of states for medicare by 20%
tie federal student loan rates to the market. a person graduating from a low level school with an art history degree should have a significantly higher interest rate than a person graduating from MIT with a degree in computer science.
enact a 10% VAT with which 100% of funds go towards paydown of the federal reserve's liabilities, with a goal of reducing to $400 billion, with the VAT expiring upon reaching that level
Obviously these ideas would cause for very tight times for the next 20-30 years, however that is what is needed to provide a more sustainable economy. That being said, obviously it would never happen, because as we have shown by electing Obama for a second term, we are more concerned with what happens tomorrow, and the future be damned.
Ken - can you stop mentioning short term indicators which are obviously going well and actually address the points I made? You don't seem to have any clue that it takes years, if not decades, for the true effects of fiscal decisions to take place.
Can you say at least one sentence about the current actions of the federal reserve? You have continually ignored that since this thread started. I am fairly sure you are ignoring it because you are flat-out ignorant about the dangers we are faced by its actions. Believe it or not, economists actually think about what current actions might affect the future, something you seem to have a very, very hard time doing. You seem to honestly think that the federal reserve managing risk in the housing market will lead to long term fiscal instability is 'theoretical', and you want me to take you seriously?
Obviously UE is low, obviously things look better today than they did four years ago. The government has taken steps to increase the liabilities on its books for the sake of short term economic growth. You are having a very, very hard time looking at long term indicators instead of 'state of the nation' indicators that do very little to predict long term economic health.
Also, using the term 'wingnuts' isn't helping you any. It makes you sound as intelligent as someone who says 'nobama' or something equally as stupid.
I'm WELL aware of the actions of the Fed. I'm also aware of that most of the stuff has been done before and has a track record of success. In short I don't buy the Austrian theories. I think the Keynesians are FAR closer to reality and that their views are more often correct and tend to work better. I'm also WELL aware of the fact that economics is NOT a HARD SCIENCE because you can't rewind time and rerun the experiment in a truly scientific manner - nor can you divorce economics from social influences and the "soft" science aspects of things like psychology (especially mass psychology), historical inertia etc. In short I just don't buy your arguments that the debt etc can't be "unwound" down the road. You Austrian School believers here on this board seem to be under the illusion that all your economic theories are "proven" - and they are NOT. The Austrian-school fans simply "believe them to be true" like it's a religion or something and tend to forget that there's an entirely different school of economic thought (with tons and tons of the top economists on board) that don't buy your theories at all. Economics is like fashion - one theory is popular for while then it's popularity fades and is replaced by the other. Since the Reagan years the Austrian thories have tended to be more "popular" - but you know what? Over that period of time the gap between rich and poor has widened and the middle class eroded instead of expanded - and little by little people (including many economist) have been catching on to that and now the Keynesian model is coming back into "popularity" again - for the simple reason that "trickle-down economics" and other Austrian-inspired ideas just haven't worked out the way there were "supposed to". There's a REASON for that - the school of thought is FLAWED.
The fact is, all of the economic schools of thought - from the Austrian school, to the Keynesian school to the Communists or whatever are all just beliefs in certain economic models - NONE of which are absolute reality. They are simply efforts to TRY and make sense of economics as whole - and over the last few decades the Austrian school has REALLY shown it's flaws. Those of you who cling to the theories based on that model are simply glued to the dogma and have no particularly special insight compared to anyone else.
I'm WELL aware of the actions of the Fed. I'm also aware of that most of the stuff has been done before. In short I don't buy the Austrian theories. I think the Keynesians are FAR closer to reality and that their views are more often correct and tend to work better. I'm also WELL aware of the fact that economics is NOT a HARD SCIENCE because you can't rewind time and rerun the experiment in a truly scientific manner - nor can you divorce economics from social influences and the "soft" science aspects of things like psychology (especially mass psychology), historical inertia etc. In short I just don't buy your arguments that the debt etc can't be "unwound" down the road. You Austrian School believers here on this board seem to be under the illusion that all your economic theories are "proven" - and they are NOT. The Austrian-school fans simply "believe them to be true" like it's a religion or something and tend to forget that there's an entirely different school of economic thought (with tons and tons of the top economics on board) that don't buy your theories at all. Economics is like fashion - one theory is popular for while then it's popularity fades and is replaced by the other. Since the Reagan years the Austrian thories have tended to be more "popular" - but you know what? Over that period of time the gap between rich and poor has widened and the middle class eroded instead of expanded - and little by little people (including many economist) have been catching on to that and now the Keynesian model is coming back into "popularity" again - for the simple reason that "trickle-down economics" and other Austrian-inspired ideas just haven't worked out the way there were "supposed to". There's a REASON for that - the school of thought is FLAWED.
The fact is, all of the economic schools of thought - from the Austrian school, to the Keynesian school to the Communists or whatever are all just beliefs in certain economic models - NONE of which are absolute reality. They are simply efforts to TRY and make sense of economics as whole - and over the last few decades the Austrian school has REALLY shown it's flaws. Those of you who cling to the theories based on that model are simply glued to the dogma and have no particularly special insight compared to anyone else.
Ken
When in the history of the United States has the federal reserve done anything like this?
I don't think much of anything should be done to help us in the short term. We have a significant hole to dig ourselves out of, and that will require a bit of short term pain.
And therein lies the problem that is purely ideological.
Quote:
Putting aside my typical attitude of leaning more conservative than I really am (because this board is so insanely left-leaning), here is what I would like to practically see done:
lower corporate tax rates. History has shown time and time again that lower corporate tax rates actually increase the net tax dollars collected from corporations
Do corporations feel charitable suddenly? You'd have a point if you suggested lowering corporate tax rates but taking away deductions. But then, you might have heard of that being a plan and promoted by opposition as a "tax increase".
Quote:
-Enact legislation to limit executive pay to stabilize internal corporate spending
- cut spending in military by 60%
Easier said than done. Especially considering that just a month ago, you posted this as a rebuttal defending high executive pay:
"Can you post an article that doesn't cherry pick eight companies also involved in fraud cases? Picking the bottom .01% of companies and claiming that it is a 'rampant trend' is hardly a smart thing to do. Is executive pay a problem in a select few companies? Obviously....is it a problem in the vast majority of companies? Absolutely not."
And then y'all want your ideas to be taken seriously.
Quote:
privatize SS in a phased approach. Everyone who has paid into the program will get the benefits promised them, but from now forward, SS is paid into and managed in market portfolios. This would cause significant deficits over the next several decades, but would work to even the governments balance sheet in the long term
Just what the Wall Street wants.
Quote:
increase early elegability age for SS to 65 immediately, to stay in effect until the system is fully privatized
Social Security, NOT Rely-On-Wall-Street security. And, you probably also think that raising age limit has no implications elsewhere.
Quote:
limit UI to three months. as the beveridge curve has strongly indicated, increasing the length of UI does cause higher unemployment rates
Does it explain why there might be a need to increase the length of UI?
Quote:
healthcare: tort reform: it needs to be much more difficult to actually sue doctors and hospitals. additionally, insurance needs to be deregulated so that competition can exist across state lines. along with this, medicare spending must decrease. Give each state a set dollar amount to be spent on medicaid, and do not provide funds above and beyond. increase medicare B premiums to 35%, while raising medicare's eligibility age to 68, while reducing federal reimbursement of states for medicare by 20%
One of those arguments that illustrates the right wing, AKA conservative, mindset. It is great if federal law trumps state laws, as long as the law is something they support. So, what is wrong with (the very few) states that do not have Tort Reform implemented? Force them to adopt it? Based on what evidence of it helping in the other 38?
Quote:
tie federal student loan rates to the market. a person graduating from a low level school with an art history degree should have a significantly higher interest rate than a person graduating from MIT with a degree in computer science.
And you believe there would be no implications of this. And how exactly do you propose this "market" be determined? What greater way to force people into areas of expertise a bureaucracy determines than to resort to such abomination?
Quote:
enact a 10% VAT with which 100% of funds go towards paydown of the federal reserve's liabilities, with a goal of reducing to $400 billion, with the VAT expiring upon reaching that level
Why not down to zero?
Quote:
Obviously these ideas would cause for very tight times for the next 20-30 years, however that is what is needed to provide a more sustainable economy.
And we just might have the conditions we see today in China. On the bright side, we will have a thriving manufacturing economy, to sell products in India and China.
When in the history of the United States has the federal reserve done anything like this?
Please provide a specific example.
Interest rate manipulation has been done many times in the past - including during the Carter/Reagan years when interest rates were driven up artificially to cool inflation. It's been SOP for a long time now.
Regarding QE - it's NOTHING NEW:
"...In October 1866, the stock markets were tumbling. The great speculator Jay Gould was falsely rumored to be dead. Cyrus Field lost a fortune, even though he had just succeeded in laying the transatlantic cable that joined the United States to Europe.
To rescue the markets from panic, the U.S. Treasury first bought $14 million of bonds “in a lump,” according to chronicler Cuthbert Mills. When interest rates didn’t stay down, the Treasury also flooded the markets with $27 million in cash.
These numbers sound small to modern ears; $14 million is about $200 million in today’s money, and $27 million in 1866 dollars is roughly $383 million in 2011. But these two interventions by the government totaled $41 million at a time when all the money held by the U.S. Treasury amounted to $139 million, according to the Statistical Abstract of the United States.
As Mills put it two decades later, the intervention “beyond question averted a panic.”
In short, back in 1866—what many Americans think of as the heyday of unfettered free enterprise—the U.S. government was willing to put nearly a third of the Treasury’s balance sheet at risk to prop up the capital markets...."
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 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.
