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.
The government can create money as it wishes. Potentially has impact but not necessarily a straight forward one.
Ain't real economics a pain? And it is reasonably clear that simple budget cutting is a brain dead strategy appealing to those who refuse to recognize that it is actually a lot more complex than that.
Not really, the government, in order to increase the national debt, needs to borrow money from the federal reserve or sell savings bonds etc.
If you buy $1,000 worth of savings bonds to give money to the government, this is $1,000 you arent out spending into the economy, and when you dont spend that $1,000, that means the retail store isnt buying $1,000 worth of products from their suppliers, arent paying truckers to get that product to the store, arent paying employees to sell or stock that product, that products not being manufactured etc..
In the same manner the left wing kooks tried to argue that $1 in food stamps spending = $2.5 into the economy, the same is true for cash because the more spending going on, the higher the GDP, the greater tax revenues etc.
If people are out buying trillions of dollars worth of government debt, this is trillions of dollars not entering the economy and being spent by the public sector. Thats trillions not being invested to chase higher returns, not creating jobs, not producting, not even creating wealth since this money is paid back rarely higher than the rate of inflation.
I repped you a while back because you seem to be one of the few on the forum who understands that there are many tools in the economic tool box and which tool one uses depends on what one is trying to build or tear down. The current crop of Republicans reach for the saw regardless of what the task at hand may be and some Democrats seem incapable of using anything other than a hammer. And unlike most folks here you understand that all economic upswings or recessions are born from the same issue, as a result what worked in one cycle is not the penicillin to go to for the next.
And yet I havent heard anyone here who opposes cutting government spending, explain to us why the economy boomed when Clinton cut the growth of spending, so much so that he was able to convince people the government was so flush with cash that he balanced the budgets, even after he cut taxes.
And yet I havent heard anyone here who opposes cutting government spending, explain to us why the economy boomed when Clinton cut the growth of spending, so much so that he was able to convince people the government was so flush with cash that he balanced the budgets, even after he cut taxes.
Why is that?
Just like the rest of our "booms" it was an artificially created bubble that popped and caused problems afterwards.
The OP also thinks that overpopulation is good for the economy. He wants to see this country with 1 billion people. According to him, if we keep growing the population it's all good because we will never run out of natural resources.
No use talking to him---he is either clueless or willfully ignorant.
Economies have gone up and down for thousands of years.
Which has nothing to do with what I said. Yes our economy boomed in the 50's and 60's because we were creating many things. It started to ebb in the 70's as places like Japan started to come back.
That has nothing to do with artificially created bubbles.
Don't forget the OP is someone who claims the government can just push some buttons or wave a magic wand and make money appear in anyone or everyones account so there's no reason for him to want to cut spending - money is "free"!
Well we didn't have the hyperinflation that some predicted. The gold bug/debt crowd have been wrong so far.
And yet our national debt has doubled in the last few short years.
That may have something to do with the welfare spending that is automatically triggered by high unemployment/underemployment, not to mention all the economic conditions since 2007....
Quote:
And every time we cut federal spending, unemployment drops with it.
That's what supposed to happen. You cut spending when the economy improves.
Quote:
Except for one simple fact, much of Europe hasnt cut spending, so if its not working very well, then what you are actually saying is increasing spending, doesnt work well, which of course we all know
It's not a black and white issue. And Europe is made up of many nations and those who have enacted austerity are not doing too well.
Well we didn't have the hyperinflation that some predicted. The gold bug/debt crowd have been wrong so far.
It's bad enough and it is hurting the middle and lower classes. They have simply been lucky that energy costs have gone down.
So the government spending here has caused problems for the middle and lower classes while sending the wealth gap to record levels and you are still going to defend it?
Which has nothing to do with what I said. Yes our economy boomed in the 50's and 60's because we were creating many things. It started to ebb in the 70's as places like Japan started to come back.
That has nothing to do with artificially created bubbles.
It might have been a bubble, but it surely wasnt artificial.
Furthermore, your response doesnt really address my comment which is as the growth of government was slowed under Clinton, the economy improved.
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.
