TheEEStory.com

unipres wrote:

supamark wrote:

student wrote:

Stealing three future apples from your grandchildren so you can eat two extra apples now, as Unipres refers to in his first scenario, is a huge problem. But it's not the only problem with wealth redistribution.

Another problem is that the redistribution is only effective for a short time before people's satisfaction with their share of the stolen spoils decreases. They then ask for more handouts. Eventually you run into a Greece-like scenario where redistribution has driven the economy into the ground.

Productivity growth is the only way to improve living standards for everyone in the long run.

do your PRC overlords approve of the way you're disparaging communism? the fact that you come from a communist country, and work for that communist gov't as a paid mouthpiece, makes it hard for me to take you seriously. at all.

I remember an overweight kid in my school. The poor chap lost many arguments because when the kids couldn't think of anything intelligent to counter his articulate points, they just pointed at him and said, "Ha ha, you're fat!" I had almost forgotten about that poor kid. Thanks supamark for reminding me that some people still utilize such faculties.

lol, it's more fun than just repeatedly typing "bullshit" after every bit of bullshit propaganda he posts. and if you don't see the irony of a member of the proletariat (in the employ of a communist gov't) saying we should all be happy with incredibly uneven wealth distribution (the cause of Marx writing his stuff), you ain't payin' attention. remember, student doesn't give his opinions, he writes what he is (or they are) told to write.

unipres wrote:

supamark wrote:

unipres wrote:

Well, you can go one of two directions:

You can reduce the overall size of the pie by forcing the 1% to give money to your friends. Yes the overall wealth drops for everyone but at least things are more equal.

OR

You can stimulate the economy by taking away the fear of punishing progress and balance the budget so that the 1% can embrace a growth strategy and start hiring once again. In this scenario, both are better off but, you have to give up the idea that everyone should earn a similar amount.

Choose wisely this November.

you apparently don't understand business. the reason why they aren't hiring is demand. consumers don't have the money to consume, so there's low demand for goods/services beyond the neccessities. businesses hire when demand for their products/services goes up enough to justify the additional outlays for a new worker. cutting the taxes of rich people will not change that - the rich will just have more money to keep in savings/investments. investments like stocks don't create jobs, they just create money for those that hold them (unless the stock tanks).

until the average american earns enough to start consuming again (and isn't afraid of losing their job), there will be no new jobs. this is why the republican plan of cutting taxes for rich people will just cause the economy to stagnate for years.

how to stimulate demand? gov't spending - tax cuts for those earning below $250K, infrastructure renewal (roads/bridges/etc), money to keep teachers and other gov't employees working instead of laid off, etc. basically, give money to people who will spend it to increase demand. it's called priming the pump.

Keynesian economics eh? That only works when you haven't over-leveraged debt already. In other words we're out of other people's money to spend.

Businesses have managed to increase productivity to meet demand. They are not hiring because they are too concerned about the current environment's stability to plan for growth. You fix this by getting control of a run away deficit, assure them that they aren't going to be punished with tax increases, minimize regulation and repeal the crazy over-reaching health care law that raises the cost of hiring employees.

Obama's massive stimulus might have had some affect if he'd have actually used it to build infrastructure like his pitch to he American public. Instead he used the spending to grow government which is a parasite to the economy.

that's all bullshit. if demand was enough to require additional hiring, hiring would be done. otherwise, they lose out on sales and profit, which will go to the guy who does expand to meet demand. basic supply and demand. you're just spouting talking points and obviously don't actually understand even the basics of macroeconomics. when deciding to expand, higher taxes don't matter. the deficit doesn't matter. the only thing that matters is, will there be demand for the additional production? If the demand is there, the business will do what it takes to expand and meet the demand or fail if they don't.

now, you could say those things are part of the demand question (and they are) but they pale in comparison to unemployment and the loss of disposable income in our current situation.

supamark wrote:

unipres wrote:

supamark wrote:

student wrote:

Stealing three future apples from your grandchildren so you can eat two extra apples now, as Unipres refers to in his first scenario, is a huge problem. But it's not the only problem with wealth redistribution.

Another problem is that the redistribution is only effective for a short time before people's satisfaction with their share of the stolen spoils decreases. They then ask for more handouts. Eventually you run into a Greece-like scenario where redistribution has driven the economy into the ground.

Productivity growth is the only way to improve living standards for everyone in the long run.

do your PRC overlords approve of the way you're disparaging communism? the fact that you come from a communist country, and work for that communist gov't as a paid mouthpiece, makes it hard for me to take you seriously. at all.

I remember an overweight kid in my school. The poor chap lost many arguments because when the kids couldn't think of anything intelligent to counter his articulate points, they just pointed at him and said, "Ha ha, you're fat!" I had almost forgotten about that poor kid. Thanks supamark for reminding me that some people still utilize such faculties.

lol, it's more fun than just repeatedly typing "bullshit" after every bit of bullshit propaganda he posts. and if you don't see the irony of a member of the proletariat (in the employ of a communist gov't) saying we should all be happy with incredibly uneven wealth distribution (the cause of Marx writing his stuff), you ain't payin' attention. remember, student doesn't give his opinions, he writes what he is (or they are) told to write.

I don't really care what you think Student is "made to write" prove it or drop it. Regardless of why, what he wrote is true and fits with proven economic theory, while the Keynesian economics has never worked in the ways it has been supposed to.

The fact is for DECADES the liberal "elites", progressives, or whatever they want to change their name too because the old one is mud, have been saying that the USA needs to be more like Europe. Yet once it finally started running out of "other peoples" money, the Keynesian economists insist we need to still do the same....only MORE $$.

unipres wrote:

Fibb wrote:

unipress... don't try to compare Canada with the USA. It's apples and oranges.

[sarcasm]Wow...I stand corrected. Glad you set me straight. [/sarcasm]

Now explain why it's racism and right wing nuttery to require an ID in the US to vote but it's fine and dandy for Canada.

I think its more about disenfranchising potential democratic voters than racism or right wing nuttery. they saw a correlation between the people who are less likely to have photo ID and the demographics of democrat leaning voters.

blacks are (probably) a lot more likely to vote for Obama than the white guy the repubs nominate.

hispanics see the republican passing laws (like in AZ and AL) that specifically target hispanics and will probably vote overwhelmingly NOT republican.

old people - actually, they vote republican so it's probably a tradeoff (or they'll work to get them ID's via voter outreach programs).

Feel_the_LovEE wrote:

supamark wrote:

unipres wrote:

supamark wrote:

student wrote:

Stealing three future apples from your grandchildren so you can eat two extra apples now, as Unipres refers to in his first scenario, is a huge problem. But it's not the only problem with wealth redistribution.

Another problem is that the redistribution is only effective for a short time before people's satisfaction with their share of the stolen spoils decreases. They then ask for more handouts. Eventually you run into a Greece-like scenario where redistribution has driven the economy into the ground.

Productivity growth is the only way to improve living standards for everyone in the long run.

do your PRC overlords approve of the way you're disparaging communism? the fact that you come from a communist country, and work for that communist gov't as a paid mouthpiece, makes it hard for me to take you seriously. at all.

I remember an overweight kid in my school. The poor chap lost many arguments because when the kids couldn't think of anything intelligent to counter his articulate points, they just pointed at him and said, "Ha ha, you're fat!" I had almost forgotten about that poor kid. Thanks supamark for reminding me that some people still utilize such faculties.

lol, it's more fun than just repeatedly typing "bullshit" after every bit of bullshit propaganda he posts. and if you don't see the irony of a member of the proletariat (in the employ of a communist gov't) saying we should all be happy with incredibly uneven wealth distribution (the cause of Marx writing his stuff), you ain't payin' attention. remember, student doesn't give his opinions, he writes what he is (or they are) told to write.

I don't really care what you think Student is "made to write" prove it or drop it. Regardless of why, what he wrote is true and fits with proven economic theory, while the Keynesian economics has never worked in the ways it has been supposed to.

The fact is for DECADES the liberal "elites", progressives, or whatever they want to change their name too because the old one is mud, have been saying that the USA needs to be more like Europe. Yet once it finally started running out of "other peoples" money, the Keynesian economists insist we need to still do the same....only MORE $$.

yeah, go fuck yourself you worthless fucking hypocrite nobody was speaking to you.

Keynesian economics work, but you have to pay attention to the entire theory. It's great to spend money when times get bad, but you have to remember to save when times are good. Nobody ever wants to do that.

example: Canada (a cautionary tale) We had a runaway deficit, and a ballooning debt (just like the USA). One government (Liberal, which is in the political center here) tightened the belt (in reasonably good times) and got us out of trouble. Soon we were running big surpluses and paying down the debt. Then they got complacent and corrupt, so we voted them out of office. The Conservatives (center right) that came in next wanted a majority government so badly that they started spending like drunken sailors and giving out big tax breaks as well. The economy was already close to max, so the tax breaks accomplished very little. Then the world economy tanked and took us with it. Now thanks to the tax breaks and extra spending during the good times, there's nothing left to "prime the pump" with.

supamark wrote:

lol, it's more fun than just repeatedly typing "bullshit" after every bit of bullshit propaganda he posts...

supamark wrote:

that's all bullshit...

Well umm yeah...

ONeil wrote:

Keynesian economics work, but you have to pay attention to the entire theory. It's great to spend money when times get bad, but you have to remember to save when times are good. Nobody ever wants to do that.

example: Canada (a cautionary tale) We had a runaway deficit, and a ballooning debt (just like the USA). One government (Liberal, which is in the political center here) tightened the belt (in reasonably good times) and got us out of trouble. Soon we were running big surpluses and paying down the debt. Then they got complacent and corrupt, so we voted them out of office. The Conservatives (center right) that came in next wanted a majority government so badly that they started spending like drunken sailors and giving out big tax breaks as well. The economy was already close to max, so the tax breaks accomplished very little. Then the world economy tanked and took us with it. Now thanks to the tax breaks and extra spending during the good times, there's nothing left to "prime the pump" with.

Very good point. Wasting the wealth of a Nation in order to "buy" elections is BS that politicians do, it is wrong no matter which politicians do it. They are supposed to work FOR us not against us. We do the work then they take our money with the claim it is for "our" benefit.

supamark wrote:

unipres wrote:

supamark wrote:

unipres wrote:

Well, you can go one of two directions:

You can reduce the overall size of the pie by forcing the 1% to give money to your friends. Yes the overall wealth drops for everyone but at least things are more equal.

OR

You can stimulate the economy by taking away the fear of punishing progress and balance the budget so that the 1% can embrace a growth strategy and start hiring once again. In this scenario, both are better off but, you have to give up the idea that everyone should earn a similar amount.

Choose wisely this November.

you apparently don't understand business. the reason why they aren't hiring is demand. consumers don't have the money to consume, so there's low demand for goods/services beyond the neccessities. businesses hire when demand for their products/services goes up enough to justify the additional outlays for a new worker. cutting the taxes of rich people will not change that - the rich will just have more money to keep in savings/investments. investments like stocks don't create jobs, they just create money for those that hold them (unless the stock tanks).

until the average american earns enough to start consuming again (and isn't afraid of losing their job), there will be no new jobs. this is why the republican plan of cutting taxes for rich people will just cause the economy to stagnate for years.

how to stimulate demand? gov't spending - tax cuts for those earning below $250K, infrastructure renewal (roads/bridges/etc), money to keep teachers and other gov't employees working instead of laid off, etc. basically, give money to people who will spend it to increase demand. it's called priming the pump.

Keynesian economics eh? That only works when you haven't over-leveraged debt already. In other words we're out of other people's money to spend.

Businesses have managed to increase productivity to meet demand. They are not hiring because they are too concerned about the current environment's stability to plan for growth. You fix this by getting control of a run away deficit, assure them that they aren't going to be punished with tax increases, minimize regulation and repeal the crazy over-reaching health care law that raises the cost of hiring employees.

Obama's massive stimulus might have had some affect if he'd have actually used it to build infrastructure like his pitch to he American public. Instead he used the spending to grow government which is a parasite to the economy.

that's all bullshit. if demand was enough to require additional hiring, hiring would be done. otherwise, they lose out on sales and profit, which will go to the guy who does expand to meet demand. basic supply and demand. you're just spouting talking points and obviously don't actually understand even the basics of macroeconomics. when deciding to expand, higher taxes don't matter. the deficit doesn't matter. the only thing that matters is, will there be demand for the additional production? If the demand is there, the business will do what it takes to expand and meet the demand or fail if they don't.

now, you could say those things are part of the demand question (and they are) but they pale in comparison to unemployment and the loss of disposable income in our current situation.

Actually supamark, the one who doesn't understand macroeconomics is you. If you did you would realize the example you give is one of supply and demand in microeconomics. A classic example of it.

Other applications of demand and supply include the distribution of income among the factors of production, including labour and capital, through factor markets. In a competitive labour market for example the quantity of labour employed and the price of labour (the wage rate) depends on the demand for labour (from employers for production) and supply of labour (from potential workers). Labour economics examines the interaction of workers and employers through such markets to explain patterns and changes of wages and other labour income, labour mobility, and (un)employment, productivity through human capital, and related public-policy issues

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics#Supply_a...

Why is it that Republicans spend so much time talking about anyone to the left of them (that describes a very large portion of the spectrum) wanting to "redistribute" the money from rich to poor. That idea is pretty much the sole domain of the extreme left wing. Most of the 99% just want the 1% to pay their share. To hear some speak on the topic, you'd think that we want to leave them penniless while some hard-luck gangsta gets his shoes.

As for the PRC, it's no wonder Students bosses wouldn't want him to encourage talk of wealth redistribution. That might make them as poor as the rest of those poor slobs that have to work 16 hour days just to eat a bowl of rice. China is about as communist as Switzerland (OK maybe I exaggerate, but I doubt Marx would recognize China as communist.)

Feel_the_LovEE wrote:

supamark wrote:

unipres wrote:

supamark wrote:

unipres wrote:

Well, you can go one of two directions:

You can reduce the overall size of the pie by forcing the 1% to give money to your friends. Yes the overall wealth drops for everyone but at least things are more equal.

OR

You can stimulate the economy by taking away the fear of punishing progress and balance the budget so that the 1% can embrace a growth strategy and start hiring once again. In this scenario, both are better off but, you have to give up the idea that everyone should earn a similar amount.

Choose wisely this November.

you apparently don't understand business. the reason why they aren't hiring is demand. consumers don't have the money to consume, so there's low demand for goods/services beyond the neccessities. businesses hire when demand for their products/services goes up enough to justify the additional outlays for a new worker. cutting the taxes of rich people will not change that - the rich will just have more money to keep in savings/investments. investments like stocks don't create jobs, they just create money for those that hold them (unless the stock tanks).

until the average american earns enough to start consuming again (and isn't afraid of losing their job), there will be no new jobs. this is why the republican plan of cutting taxes for rich people will just cause the economy to stagnate for years.

how to stimulate demand? gov't spending - tax cuts for those earning below $250K, infrastructure renewal (roads/bridges/etc), money to keep teachers and other gov't employees working instead of laid off, etc. basically, give money to people who will spend it to increase demand. it's called priming the pump.

Keynesian economics eh? That only works when you haven't over-leveraged debt already. In other words we're out of other people's money to spend.

Businesses have managed to increase productivity to meet demand. They are not hiring because they are too concerned about the current environment's stability to plan for growth. You fix this by getting control of a run away deficit, assure them that they aren't going to be punished with tax increases, minimize regulation and repeal the crazy over-reaching health care law that raises the cost of hiring employees.

Obama's massive stimulus might have had some affect if he'd have actually used it to build infrastructure like his pitch to he American public. Instead he used the spending to grow government which is a parasite to the economy.

that's all bullshit. if demand was enough to require additional hiring, hiring would be done. otherwise, they lose out on sales and profit, which will go to the guy who does expand to meet demand. basic supply and demand. you're just spouting talking points and obviously don't actually understand even the basics of macroeconomics. when deciding to expand, higher taxes don't matter. the deficit doesn't matter. the only thing that matters is, will there be demand for the additional production? If the demand is there, the business will do what it takes to expand and meet the demand or fail if they don't.

now, you could say those things are part of the demand question (and they are) but they pale in comparison to unemployment and the loss of disposable income in our current situation.

Actually supamark, the one who doesn't understand macroeconomics is you. If you did you would realize the example you give is one of supply and demand in microeconomics. A classic example of it.

Other applications of demand and supply include the distribution of income among the factors of production, including labour and capital, through factor markets. In a competitive labour market for example the quantity of labour employed and the price of labour (the wage rate) depends on the demand for labour (from employers for production) and supply of labour (from potential workers). Labour economics examines the interaction of workers and employers through such markets to explain patterns and changes of wages and other labour income, labour mobility, and (un)employment, productivity through human capital, and related public-policy issues

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics#Supply_a...

no company will demand more workers unless there's someone to buy the extra production. do you actually believe that employers will hire more people because their bank account got fatter throught tax cuts and they just want to "give back" to the community?

fuck you're stupid.

ONeil wrote:

Why is it that Republicans spend so much time talking about anyone to the left of them (that describes a very large portion of the spectrum) wanting to "redistribute" the money from rich to poor. That idea is pretty much the sole domain of the extreme left wing. Most of the 99% just want the 1% to pay their share. To hear some speak on the topic, you'd think that we want to leave them penniless while some hard-luck gangsta gets his shoes.

As for the PRC, it's no wonder Students bosses wouldn't want him to encourage talk of wealth redistribution. That might make them as poor as the rest of those poor slobs that have to work 16 hour days just to eat a bowl of rice. China is about as communist as Switzerland (OK maybe I exaggerate, but I doubt Marx would recognize China as communist.)

well, you could also say that there's never been a "real" communist gov't. they never seem to get past the dictatorship of the proletariat stage.

ONeil wrote:

Why is it that Republicans spend so much time talking about anyone to the left of them (that describes a very large portion of the spectrum) wanting to "redistribute" the money from rich to poor. That idea is pretty much the sole domain of the extreme left wing. Most of the 99% just want the 1% to pay their share. To hear some speak on the topic, you'd think that we want to leave them penniless while some hard-luck gangsta gets his shoes.

As for the PRC, it's no wonder Students bosses wouldn't want him to encourage talk of wealth redistribution. That might make them as poor as the rest of those poor slobs that have to work 16 hour days just to eat a bowl of rice. China is about as communist as Switzerland (OK maybe I exaggerate, but I doubt Marx would recognize China as communist.)

For me it is simple, when I look at what I make between multiple sources of income, I see about 50% of it going to taxes. What the heck am I getting for that money? I don't mind paying a "fair" share, but this is ridiculous. My wife and I both work full time, I work multiple jobs and still have about 50% of what I make taken from me between state, federal, social security etc.

Now as for social security, if I took that amount and invested it in very safe low yield investments, I would still end up with WAY more then I will ever get from the government.

Tell me about the roads that my taxes pay for, actually the gas tax is supposed to pay for that and the roads where I live are garbage.

Fire Department? Nope I have to pay rual fire department taxes in my property taxes.

I am not really worried that the government will take my money and give it to poor people, although they do to a large extent. I am mad as hell because they take our money and give it to themselves, their friends, their families, and their pet causes.

The problem with communism is that humanity is flawed. People in general will not work without a proper incentive. Capitalism provides the best incentive that works within human nature, self intrest. While there are lot a of people who are charitable and giving,(look up who is more a conservative or liberal), everyone looks out for themselves (and hopefully their family).

Also with communism, the state own and controls everything so in pure communism the populous has NO WAY except revelution to make changes. They have no power economically like we do in a capatalistic society.

supamark wrote:

ONeil wrote:

Why is it that Republicans spend so much time talking about anyone to the left of them (that describes a very large portion of the spectrum) wanting to "redistribute" the money from rich to poor. That idea is pretty much the sole domain of the extreme left wing. Most of the 99% just want the 1% to pay their share. To hear some speak on the topic, you'd think that we want to leave them penniless while some hard-luck gangsta gets his shoes.

As for the PRC, it's no wonder Students bosses wouldn't want him to encourage talk of wealth redistribution. That might make them as poor as the rest of those poor slobs that have to work 16 hour days just to eat a bowl of rice. China is about as communist as Switzerland (OK maybe I exaggerate, but I doubt Marx would recognize China as communist.)

well, you could also say that there's never been a "real" communist gov't. they never seem to get past the dictatorship of the proletariat stage.

Your right Supamark. But I think that is because the people in power will never get over their own self intrest to reacha stage of "pure" communism.

supamark wrote:

Feel_the_LovEE wrote:

supamark wrote:

unipres wrote:

supamark wrote:

unipres wrote:

Well, you can go one of two directions:

You can reduce the overall size of the pie by forcing the 1% to give money to your friends. Yes the overall wealth drops for everyone but at least things are more equal.

OR

You can stimulate the economy by taking away the fear of punishing progress and balance the budget so that the 1% can embrace a growth strategy and start hiring once again. In this scenario, both are better off but, you have to give up the idea that everyone should earn a similar amount.

Choose wisely this November.

you apparently don't understand business. the reason why they aren't hiring is demand. consumers don't have the money to consume, so there's low demand for goods/services beyond the neccessities. businesses hire when demand for their products/services goes up enough to justify the additional outlays for a new worker. cutting the taxes of rich people will not change that - the rich will just have more money to keep in savings/investments. investments like stocks don't create jobs, they just create money for those that hold them (unless the stock tanks).

until the average american earns enough to start consuming again (and isn't afraid of losing their job), there will be no new jobs. this is why the republican plan of cutting taxes for rich people will just cause the economy to stagnate for years.

how to stimulate demand? gov't spending - tax cuts for those earning below $250K, infrastructure renewal (roads/bridges/etc), money to keep teachers and other gov't employees working instead of laid off, etc. basically, give money to people who will spend it to increase demand. it's called priming the pump.

Keynesian economics eh? That only works when you haven't over-leveraged debt already. In other words we're out of other people's money to spend.

Businesses have managed to increase productivity to meet demand. They are not hiring because they are too concerned about the current environment's stability to plan for growth. You fix this by getting control of a run away deficit, assure them that they aren't going to be punished with tax increases, minimize regulation and repeal the crazy over-reaching health care law that raises the cost of hiring employees.

Obama's massive stimulus might have had some affect if he'd have actually used it to build infrastructure like his pitch to he American public. Instead he used the spending to grow government which is a parasite to the economy.

that's all bullshit. if demand was enough to require additional hiring, hiring would be done. otherwise, they lose out on sales and profit, which will go to the guy who does expand to meet demand. basic supply and demand. you're just spouting talking points and obviously don't actually understand even the basics of macroeconomics. when deciding to expand, higher taxes don't matter. the deficit doesn't matter. the only thing that matters is, will there be demand for the additional production? If the demand is there, the business will do what it takes to expand and meet the demand or fail if they don't.

now, you could say those things are part of the demand question (and they are) but they pale in comparison to unemployment and the loss of disposable income in our current situation.

Actually supamark, the one who doesn't understand macroeconomics is you. If you did you would realize the example you give is one of supply and demand in microeconomics. A classic example of it.

Other applications of demand and supply include the distribution of income among the factors of production, including labour and capital, through factor markets. In a competitive labour market for example the quantity of labour employed and the price of labour (the wage rate) depends on the demand for labour (from employers for production) and supply of labour (from potential workers). Labour economics examines the interaction of workers and employers through such markets to explain patterns and changes of wages and other labour income, labour mobility, and (un)employment, productivity through human capital, and related public-policy issues

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics#Supply_a...

no company will demand more workers unless there's someone to buy the extra production. do you actually believe that employers will hire more people because their bank account got fatter throught tax cuts and they just want to "give back" to the community?

fuck you're stupid.

supamark, you screwed up the difference between micro and macro economics and then you cuss me out and call ME stupid. Yeah you sure prove your point.

You are accusing me of something I didn't say. Of course if demand goes up suppliers will work to supply it, and in the long run that usually means more employment but not always local or national. The fact is you messed up while insulting someone else then got mad because I pointed out you were wrong.

Feel_the_LovEE wrote:

Keynesian economics has never worked in the ways it has been supposed to............... the Keynesian economists insist we need to still do the same....only MORE $$.

A well targeted Keynesian spending program saved Australia from having a recession, a cash handout to everyone had an immediate effect and helped retailers retain staff. A school building program helped keep the construction industry working over a longer term, this was packaged along with longer term public works and many other measures.

The conservatives give credit to our good economic performance during the global financial crisis to the mining industry , however as many mining employees are contractors employment in mining fell immediately and did not recover for some time. There are many other things the conservatives will say that are just plain wrong given any scrutiny.

By not allowing unemployment to grow tax income was sustained and the cost of unemployment benefits were avoided. This was probably the most successful example of Keynesian economics, the reason for the was the Government and reserve bank had learned the lesson to "Go fast and go big". Had we taken the advice of the conservatives and immediately cut government spending to contain the deficit there is no doubt that the recession that resulted would eventually left us with a larger public debt and much higher unemployment.

A well targeted Keynesian stimulus did work

As for the US although I'm sure there will be many more knowledgeable voices to correct my recollection, I think the Obama administration were prevented from implementing their prefered measures in full. Having a larger spending package at the very beginning of the crisis may well have also resulted in lower US debt.

Feel_the_LovEE wrote:

supamark, you screwed up the difference between micro and macro economics and then you cuss me out and call ME stupid. Yeah you sure prove your point.

You are accusing me of something I didn't say. Of course if demand goes up suppliers will work to supply it, and in the long run that usually means more employment but not always local or national. The fact is you messed up while insulting someone else then got mad because I pointed out you were wrong.

Really? to paraphrase some rappers in the 90's... you better check yo self before you wreck yo self.

wikipedia wrote:

This is in contrast to macroeconomics, which involves the "sum total of economic activity, dealing with the issues of growth, inflation, and unemployment."[2] Microeconomics also deals with the effects of national economic policies (such as changing taxation levels) on the aforementioned aspects of the economy.

I'm talking about growth and unemployment... on a market wide scale so its got some macro, and instead of rebutting my position, you nitpick. good job.

oh, and if you think you can slander me (calling me a racist) and I'll let it slide, you're even more stupid than I thought shitstain.

student wrote:

Fibb wrote:

50 percent of U.S. workers make less than $26,364 per year. http://thkpr.gs/zXMPo7

A large amount of the stuff you post is incorrect; you know that, right?

For 2010, the median single-earner household income was $42k, and the median two-earner household income was $81k. Overall, the median household income was $50k. That's from the BLS (official stats). The SSA numbers exclude certain income sources and are used for SSA-specific purposes.

Why are you always clamoring for income redistribution? It's senseless and is a drag on growth. Productivity growth is the only thing which increases standards of living in the long run.

supamark wrote:

learn to read. I know english isn't your native tongue, but.... wages are a subset of income. wages are what you earn by working. when half of americans don't earn enough from wages to do anything more than get by, the economy will not recover since there will not be enough demand to drive job growth via business expansion to meet that increased demand (the only reason a business expands payroll).

as an example, my mother earns a comfortable living off of investments (well above $27K per year) but she makes zero in wages.

supamark,

If you had bothered reading the helpful link I had provided you would have found the SSA stating this: "we often loosely refer to the basis for the index as average wages. To be more precise, however, the index is based on compensation (wages, tips, and the like) subject to Federal income taxes"

You non-reading socialist.

Whatever you want to call it, the median income was $50k for 2010. Half of US citizens had an income higher than $50k. The median single-earner household income was $42k, and the median two-earner household income was $81k.

Last edited Wed, 25 Jan 2012, 8:13pm by student

supamark wrote:

Feel_the_LovEE wrote:

supamark, you screwed up the difference between micro and macro economics and then you cuss me out and call ME stupid. Yeah you sure prove your point.

You are accusing me of something I didn't say. Of course if demand goes up suppliers will work to supply it, and in the long run that usually means more employment but not always local or national. The fact is you messed up while insulting someone else then got mad because I pointed out you were wrong.

Really? to paraphrase some rappers in the 90's... you better check yo self before you wreck yo self.

wikipedia wrote:

This is in contrast to macroeconomics, which involves the "sum total of economic activity, dealing with the issues of growth, inflation, and unemployment."[2] Microeconomics also deals with the effects of national economic policies (such as changing taxation levels) on the aforementioned aspects of the economy.

I'm talking about growth and unemployment... on a market wide scale so its got some macro, and instead of rebutting my position, you nitpick. good job.

oh, and if you think you can slander me (calling me a racist) and I'll let it slide, you're even more stupid than I thought shitstain.

I really don't care what you let slide. The truth is that you cherry pick and misquote or simply ignore arguments for which you have no reasonable response. When your point of view is flawed you resort to name calling and seem to think that makes you right.

You seem to believe it is ok for you to say anything you want or cuss someone out but when I called you straight out what you were insunuating I was (racist), you blew a gasket.

If you refer back to what the assertions were:

Me- Everyone should have an ID so they can vote ( and have an honest vote)

You- Minorities can't/won't get an ID

Which seems like a racist point of view? I fully believe that they can get an ID because I have the faith in them as functioning human beings just as good as anyone else.

The only one acting a fool here is you.

A comment on Keynes:

As I've explained before, Keynes said himself [that] he was not a keynesian. I will attempt to illuminate aspects of the issue somewhat, hopefully not mangling them in the process.

If there is a reasonable expectation that the economy will pick up and the government is carrying a low debt load (say 20% or 30% of GDP), it makes sense for the government to tide the economy over with targeted investment expenditures. This is not stimulating the economy. It is tiding it over until the natural level of demand picks up as anticipated.

- If there is a protracted shift in demand for workers' output, deficit spending is generally pointless as it is not simply tiding the economy over (there being nothing to tide it over to).

- According to history; when public debt reaches around 90% of GDP, increasing it further will markedly reduce the growth rate. So if deficit spending is to be carried out, it should end before hitting overpowering headwinds with debt at around 90% of GDP. Preferably, there should be a buffer for further investment expenditures, should they be called for. This requires a generally balanced budget and a relatively low debt load. If public debt exceeds 60% of GDP in good times, there is an increased risk of being unable to tide an economy over in a sever recession, should it be called for. I suggest somewhere between 20% and 40% of GDP is likely a tolerable level, perhaps staying in the 30% range (would like to find research on this). This would vary according to individual economies and economic conditions.

- If it is determined there will not be a protracted shift in demand for workers' hitherto level of output, then there is room for targeted government investment, so long as public debt does not exceed some level lower than around 90% of GDP. Investment does not included handing out money equally to the populace or helping people who took on too big of a mortgage.

In the case of a protracted shift in demand for workers' hitherto level of output, then different measures are called for; such as slower investment (which can be afforded with current revenues) in fixing the reasons for the protracted shift.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

There are fundamental problems with the US economy which most likely cannot be fixed with deficit expenditures, and instead must be dealt with through shifting expenditures away from entitlements and towards investment in future productivity growth. Changing and enforcing policy would assist this effort.

. . . . . . . . A note on investment:

Investments should be made when the expected economic return is greater than the economic cost, taking all factors into account.

Last edited Wed, 25 Jan 2012, 9:43pm by student

How can you tell if you're making love to a teacher,a nurse or an airline stewardess?

A teacher says we got to do this over and over again til we get it right.

A nurse says hold still this won't hurt a bit.

And a airline stewardness says put this over your mouth and nose and breathe normally.

Feel_the_LovEE wrote:

student wrote:

Stealing three future apples from your grandchildren so you can eat two extra apples now, as Unipres refers to in his first scenario, is a huge problem. But it's not the only problem with wealth redistribution.

Another problem is that the redistribution is only effective for a short time before people's satisfaction with their share of the stolen spoils decreases. They then ask for more handouts. Eventually you run into a Greece-like scenario where redistribution has driven the economy into the ground.

Productivity growth is the only way to improve living standards for everyone in the long run.

WOW Common sense, no BS, no magical fairy dust. I love it. Student you are my hero.

Thanks.

supamark wrote:

no company will demand more workers unless there's someone to buy the extra production. do you actually believe that employers will hire more people because their bank account got fatter throught tax cuts and they just want to "give back" to the community?

fuck you're stupid.

This is chicken and egg. Right now companies are only hiring productive (already trained) people to meet demand because of the undertanty of the future. They are not building infrastructure to support growth or investing in people because they don't see indicators (largly policy) that things are getting better. This is why you keep hearing companies say, we want to hire people but can't find anyone. There is no CapEx spending only OpEx spending to "meet the current demand".

CapEx spending drives growth and long term hiring.

Oh, and stop the name calling it just makes you look like a...(pausing here to follow my own advice)

unipres wrote:

supamark wrote:

no company will demand more workers unless there's someone to buy the extra production. do you actually believe that employers will hire more people because their bank account got fatter throught tax cuts and they just want to "give back" to the community?

fuck you're stupid.

This is chicken and egg. Right now companies are only hiring productive (already trained) people to meet demand because of the undertanty of the future. They are not building infrastructure to support growth or investing in people because they don't see indicators (largly policy) that things are getting better. This is why you keep hearing companies say, we want to hire people but can't find anyone. There is no CapEx spending only OpEx spending to "meet the current demand".

CapEx spending drives growth and long term hiring.

Oh, and stop the name calling it just makes you look like a...(pausing here to follow my own advice)

Egg comes first, always (basic genetics).

right now there are 3+ people for each job opening, and the companies who can't find anyone either have VERY specific requirements (i.e. rocket scientist) or aren't really looking very hard (because they want to import cheap labor, like in the IT field w/ H1B visas).

your contention that policy is keeping people from hiring is just bullshit talking points from the republicans. lack of demand is what's keeping hiring down. demand for goods and services is stagnant because consumers don't have as much disposable income, they're scared about the future, and credit is harder to get. The 2000's were driven by deficit spending BY CONSUMERS - people spent more than they took in (negative savings rate). The only factor in business expansion is - "can I sell the additional product at a profit?" if the answer is yes you expand. nothing else matters but "if I make it can I sell it?" Taxes certainly don't matter - you have to make a profit to get taxed. regulations don't matter - if they're operating profitably, who cares (except people like that d-bag Tom Delay, who got into politics because he was pissed the EPA banned some pesticides he used in his pest control biz because they caused cancer or other bad health effects).

http://www.bankrate.com/brm/news/sav/20060308a1...

The savings rate has recently climbed quite (in historical terms) high due to people having no confidence (and high debt). This is the problem that must be solved, and the "egg" to make it happen is greater gov't stimulus. that, or we do a "lost decade" like Japan had.

Feel_the_LovEE wrote:

I really don't care what you let slide. The truth is that you cherry pick and misquote or simply ignore arguments for which you have no reasonable response. When your point of view is flawed you resort to name calling and seem to think that makes you right.

You seem to believe it is ok for you to say anything you want or cuss someone out but when I called you straight out what you were insunuating I was (racist), you blew a gasket.

If you refer back to what the assertions were:

Me- Everyone should have an ID so they can vote ( and have an honest vote)

You- Minorities can't/won't get an ID

Which seems like a racist point of view? I fully believe that they can get an ID because I have the faith in them as functioning human beings just as good as anyone else.

The only one acting a fool here is you.

one is an opinion (photo ID required) the other is a statement of fact (the poor and minorities get photo ID at a lower rate than others). where's the racisim again? yeah.

here is racism (since you obviously don't understand it):

<insert group of people> are inferior because of <insert some bullshit reason>.

Just because you think I insinuated something (that I didn't) doesn't mean it happened, only that you're either overly sensitive or just stupid. or both.

also, where have I "cherry picked/misquoted" and ignored <valid> arguments? if I ignore it, it's because I feel no need to respond (because it's either obvious BS or obvious truth).

The thing is supamark, you made the assertion that republicans only want IDs to keep minorities from voting (democrat). Your reasoning for this was because less minorities have an ID, that means they want to keep minorities from voting.

My issue with what you are saying is this:
Although it is true less minorites have a valid ID to use for voting, republicians have SUPPORTED free IDs in order to make it as easy as possible for them to GET one, in fact that whole free ride thing makes it even more obvious.

How can you make the assertion that voter ID is simply to keep minorities from voting when somone is TRYING to help them get an ID?

Everyone should have an intrest in making sure we have a voting proccess that is honest. The only people who are not interested in an honest vote are those who benefit from a corrupt process.

If your concern really is about minorites not voting because they don't have IDs, then you should SUPPORT helping them get one. Not just for voting but for any of the other reasons people need IDs in daily life.

Feel_the_LovEE wrote:

The thing is supamark, you made the assertion that republicans only want IDs to keep minorities from voting (democrat). Your reasoning for this was because less minorities have an ID, that means they want to keep minorities from voting.

My issue with what you are saying is this:
Although it is true less minorites have a valid ID to use for voting, republicians have SUPPORTED free IDs in order to make it as easy as possible for them to GET one, in fact that whole free ride thing makes it even more obvious.

How can you make the assertion that voter ID is simply to keep minorities from voting when somone is TRYING to help them get an ID?

Everyone should have an intrest in making sure we have a voting proccess that is honest. The only people who are not interested in an honest vote are those who benefit from a corrupt process.

If your concern really is about minorites not voting because they don't have IDs, then you should SUPPORT helping them get one. Not just for voting but for any of the other reasons people need IDs in daily life.

read this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_ID_laws_%28U...
and the following section on studies.

supamark wrote:

Feel_the_LovEE wrote:

The thing is supamark, you made the assertion that republicans only want IDs to keep minorities from voting (democrat). Your reasoning for this was because less minorities have an ID, that means they want to keep minorities from voting.

My issue with what you are saying is this:
Although it is true less minorites have a valid ID to use for voting, republicians have SUPPORTED free IDs in order to make it as easy as possible for them to GET one, in fact that whole free ride thing makes it even more obvious.

How can you make the assertion that voter ID is simply to keep minorities from voting when somone is TRYING to help them get an ID?

Everyone should have an intrest in making sure we have a voting proccess that is honest. The only people who are not interested in an honest vote are those who benefit from a corrupt process.

If your concern really is about minorites not voting because they don't have IDs, then you should SUPPORT helping them get one. Not just for voting but for any of the other reasons people need IDs in daily life.

read this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_ID_laws_%28U...
and the following section on studies.

Yeah I read it, I always hear the same thing there is no voting irregularities. Yet there is coverage almost EVERY election about voting issues. Read the article again and look at the part that says the study you said to look at had issues:

The Heritage Foundation, a conservative thinktank, disputed the methodology of the study of 900 people. The credibility of the survey was contested by another question, where 14% of respondents said they had both a U.S. birth certificate and naturalization papers.[25] In 2010, the voting age population was an estimated 237.3 million, and the citizen voting age population was 217.5 million. Of those, 186.9 million were registered voters.[26] The Heritage Foundation has pointed to U.S. Department of Transportation records showing that there were 205.8 million valid drivers licenses in 2009, meaning there are 19 million more individuals with photo ID than there are registered voters, as evidence that photo ID is not hard to obtain.[27] Similarly, Kris Kobach, a Republican supporter of Voter ID laws, points to evidence in Kansas that more than 30,000 registered drivers in Kansas are not registered to vote.[28]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/voter-id...

Last edited Thu, 26 Jan 2012, 4:30pm by Feel_the_LovEE

Two-thirds of American investors support closing tax loophole exploited by Mitt Romney http://thkpr.gs/yxrz9S
______________________________________________

Warren Buffet on class warfare: "If this is a war" the rich have "the nuclear bomb" http://thkpr.gs/xEhj6f
______________________________________________

20% of seniors are living on an average income of $7500 per year

Feel_the_LovEE wrote:

supamark wrote:

Feel_the_LovEE wrote:

The thing is supamark, you made the assertion that republicans only want IDs to keep minorities from voting (democrat). Your reasoning for this was because less minorities have an ID, that means they want to keep minorities from voting.

My issue with what you are saying is this:
Although it is true less minorites have a valid ID to use for voting, republicians have SUPPORTED free IDs in order to make it as easy as possible for them to GET one, in fact that whole free ride thing makes it even more obvious.

How can you make the assertion that voter ID is simply to keep minorities from voting when somone is TRYING to help them get an ID?

Everyone should have an intrest in making sure we have a voting proccess that is honest. The only people who are not interested in an honest vote are those who benefit from a corrupt process.

If your concern really is about minorites not voting because they don't have IDs, then you should SUPPORT helping them get one. Not just for voting but for any of the other reasons people need IDs in daily life.

read this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_ID_laws_%28U...
and the following section on studies.

Yeah I read it, I always hear the same thing there is no voting irregularities. Yet there is coverage almost EVERY election about voting issues. Read the article again and look at the part that says the study you said to look at had issues:

The Heritage Foundation, a conservative thinktank, disputed the methodology of the study of 900 people. The credibility of the survey was contested by another question, where 14% of respondents said they had both a U.S. birth certificate and naturalization papers.[25] In 2010, the voting age population was an estimated 237.3 million, and the citizen voting age population was 217.5 million. Of those, 186.9 million were registered voters.[26] The Heritage Foundation has pointed to U.S. Department of Transportation records showing that there were 205.8 million valid drivers licenses in 2009, meaning there are 19 million more individuals with photo ID than there are registered voters, as evidence that photo ID is not hard to obtain.[27] Similarly, Kris Kobach, a Republican supporter of Voter ID laws, points to evidence in Kansas that more than 30,000 registered drivers in Kansas are not registered to vote.[28]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/voter-id...

of course the heritage foundation had problems, it conflicts with their desires for a (neo)conservative republican majority in perpetuity. I'll take the word of sociologists and other professionals who know what they're doin' over a bunch of people with political science and law degrees with an ideological axe to grind any day.

and no, I didn't read the opinion piece because, well, it's opinion not fact.