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.
Please, do tell how we magically create more demand? Do you have a magic wand or do you just snap your fingers and BOOM!! Demand for products and services soars!
Demand comes from spending. I go to a nice restaurant and demand dinner. The restaurant supplies it. My spending for the meal is income to the restaurant and its employees. Now they have what used to be my money, and they can go out and spend it again. That creates more demand. Somebody else provides the supply. Now whoever those people are have what used to be my money. Or I can just stay home and have Ramen noodles. Screw the restaurant and all those other people.
Right now, cowed consumers are afraid to spend or borrow. Businesses are loathe therefore to invest. Everybody thinks they should cut back because times are tough. They don't apparently realize that you save up FOR a rainy day, not ON one. So, with consumer demand and business demand each in sharp decline, the only remaining source for propping up demand is the public sector. State and local can't do it. Only the feds can, and they try to put their dollars where they get the most stimulus bang for the buck. That is, where money pumped into the economy will be spent the fastest. Food stamp and unemployment benefits fit that bill. Tax cuts for the rich (the only known Republican idea) do not.
I don't think we need another stimulus package (I'm not convinced that they even work). However, if it was a certainty that there was going to be another stimulus package, I would choose that it be given to individuals, not businesses (and especially not banks). Then these people could pay off some of their debt, perhaps giving them a little more disposable income.
Collectively, people are paying back way too much debt as it is. All they do is build up pools of funds that could be borrowed, but no one wants to take out a loan either. So, relatively speaking, the money just sits around. It doesn't get spent by anyone. No spending = no demand = no supply = no jobs.
Collectively, people are paying back way too much debt as it is. All they do is build up pools of funds that could be borrowed, but no one wants to take out a loan either. So, relatively speaking, the money just sits around. It doesn't get spent by anyone. No spending = no demand = no supply = no jobs.
I disagree. Collectively, people are doing what they should have been doing for the last 20+ years, not going into debt to buy things they don't need.
I disagree. Collectively, people are doing what they should have been doing for the last 20+ years, not going into debt to buy things they don't need.
You can disagree if you'd like. But your disagreement is based on old wives' tales. Modern economies run on credit. Without smoothly operating credit markets that efficiently meet the credit needs of individuals and businesses, we are all worse off. As you can see by simply taking a look around. There were two adverse developments between roughly 2000 and 2006 that affected credit.
First, productivity gains were disproportionately directed into corporate profits and away from wage increases. As the result, the real median household income for all groups not at the upper end of the income scale FELL over those six years. Middle class families had to borrow just to stay even. And the rich with all that tax cut and profit money lying around were happy to lend it to them.
Second of course was the wanton rape of credit markets by the major Wall Street investment banks through the misrepresentation of mortgage-backed securities done solely for the preservation of their own huge profits and bonuses. This was equivalent to vandals pouring sugar in your gas tank. It says nothing about the car, and everything about the vandals.
You can disagree if you'd like. But your disagreement is based on old wives' tales. Modern economies run on credit. Without smoothly operating credit markets that efficiently meet the credit needs of individuals and businesses, we are all worse off. As you can see by simply taking a look around. There were two adverse developments between roughly 2000 and 2006 that affected credit.
First, productivity gains were disproportionately directed into corporate profits and away from wage increases. As the result, the real median household income for all groups not at the upper end of the income scale FELL over those six years. Middle class families had to borrow just to stay even. And the rich with all that tax cut and profit money lying around were happy to lend it to them.
Second of course was the wanton rape of credit markets by the major Wall Street investment banks through the misrepresentation of mortgage-backed securities done solely for the preservation of their own huge profits and bonuses. This was equivalent to vandals pouring sugar in your gas tank. It says nothing about the car, and everything about the vandals.
Lots of words, words I don't necessarily disagree with (Wall Street screwed us over). But they're completely irrelevant in regards to my statement.
Did people go into debt? Yes, that is a fact.
Did people buy things they don't need with that debt? Yes, that is a fact.
Consumers were overleveraged (and still are, which is why they need to pay off their debt). It's hypocritical to get upset at banks that overleveraged but not get upset with individuals who did the same.
Some individuals mismanage credit. Doesn't matter what decade it is. But pretending that greedy consumers and their sinful lusting after more and more material goods were at fault for the problems the economy crashed into is a gossamer tale. Consumers were forced into borrowing -- albeit at very low rates -- money that, but for some very bad economic policy, would have been theirs to begin with. But while perhaps deplorable, there was no threat of global financial collapse emanating from just that. That sort of calamity required somebody like the unregulated whiz kids who figured out that they could strip off all the profit from real estate deals for themselves, then turn around and sell off all the risk to somebody else. So that's what they did. And when they ran out of the good stuff, they started selling the mediocre. And when they ran out of the mediocre, they sold the garbage. Until it poisoned the system.
Absent the Wall Street ingredient, we just had another Republican administration screwing over the regular folks in favor of the rich. There was nothing really new or unusual in that.
Absent the Wall Street ingredient, we just had another Republican administration screwing over the regular folks in favor of the rich. There was nothing really new or unusual in that.
as usual with the biased punches, sagani
who passed nafta...the democrats
who eased the mortgage rules...clinton, cineros, and coumo
who favors the rich... the democrats...they lead the poor around with their little carrot, while at the very same time chopping their feet off
the liberals have been destroying this country for years, one step at a time
the are bought and paid for by big FOREIGN BUSINESS
boy, tough to pull the wool over your eyes! The loan to fisker motors is for development of hybrid electric systems and the eventual construction of a $40k sedan in the us. One of fisker's other investors is kpbc, a venture capital company in which al gore is a partner. Colin powell is also a partner. Why not play your silly six degrees of kevin bacon with him?
and it's just a coincidence that gore is involved. If you think we will see any car out of this it is you who has the hoodie on backwards.
some high-end, high-demand professionals do receive a higher salary in the government than in the private sector. Most people don't. All in all, fed workers typically receive an 18-22% lower salary than they would in the private sector for comparable work. Fortunately, the job satisfaction is so much better that a lot of people are still drawn to it.
you mean like the $6 million for each ceo of freddie and fannie? The $200 million they paid out in bonuses? Rains $90 million? Funny how they only think it's bad when private industry leaders get large bonuses.
I guess what you're really trying to say is that the government is top heavy when it comes to "high-end, high-demand professionals".
But even with all that top heavy "talent" you are still wrong.
Quote:
in 2008, the average wage for 1.9 million federal civilian workers was $79,197, which compared to an average $50,028 for the nation’s 108 million private sector workers (measured in full-time equivalents). The figure shows that the federal pay advantage (the gap between the lines) is steadily increasing.
so the administration has increased your taxes, has it? I find that kind of odd, since everyone else i know has gotten tax cuts. Not sure how you missed out on those. Aside from that sloppy bit of fiction, you fail to address the question at all. Care to try again? What sort of actions should the goverment be taking in order to "really bring back jobs"? Do you have an actual answer or just more meaningless schlock?
i didn't say they did....yet although that is the plan. That does not discount what i said would work to help the economy. What they did was borrow the money, that will have to be repaid, with interest. We are already borrowing $130billion dollars a month, you think borrowing $150 billion a month will improve our economy? That plus all the other grand ideas of spending has put a halt to much of consumer and business spending, expanding and confidence. You believe that government knows best how to spend our money, most people, smart people don't agree.
Some individuals mismanage credit. Doesn't matter what decade it is. But pretending that greedy consumers and their sinful lusting after more and more material goods were at fault for the problems the economy crashed into is a gossamer tale. Consumers were forced into borrowing -- albeit at very low rates -- money that, but for some very bad economic policy, would have been theirs to begin with. But while perhaps deplorable, there was no threat of global financial collapse emanating from just that. That sort of calamity required somebody like the unregulated whiz kids who figured out that they could strip off all the profit from real estate deals for themselves, then turn around and sell off all the risk to somebody else. So that's what they did. And when they ran out of the good stuff, they started selling the mediocre. And when they ran out of the mediocre, they sold the garbage. Until it poisoned the system.
Absent the Wall Street ingredient, we just had another Republican administration screwing over the regular folks in favor of the rich. There was nothing really new or unusual in that.
More words, but you still haven't refuted my argument.
I never said consumer spending was responsible for the economic decline. I never said consumers were greedy. Those are your judgments, your assumptions.
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.
