If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(NPR)   New Jobs report: 96,000 jobs added and Unemployment down to 8.1%. November's Jobs report: Mitt Romney still unemployed   (npr.org) divider line 714
    More: Spiffy, Mitt Romney, Alan Krueger, a.m. ET, Bureau of Labor Statistics, unemployment  
•       •       •

1193 clicks; posted to Politics » on 07 Sep 2012 at 11:10 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



714 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-09-07 01:02:37 PM

mcsmiley: So, basically what you;re saying is that the economy started to turn around a few months after Obama was inaugurated and he had a chance to put some of his policies in place. That number started dropping around july/august 2009. You just disproved your own point.


My point was U3 and U6 say the same thing, they just have a different scale. So when someone states U6 (when everyone is used to U3's smaller scale), they're trying to mislead.

The fact that the economy started to turn around a few months after Obama was inaugurated and he had a chance to put some of his policies in place, is just a side-point.

What point did you think I was trying to make?
 
2012-09-07 01:03:17 PM

ExperianScaresCthulhu: Cletus C.: AirForceVet: I'm not particularly worried about unemployment as the sole measure of the Obama Administration.

Wise strategy if you're an Obama supporter.

Obama is working hard, dude, and the unemployment numbers would be lower if companies weren't on record as being specifically hostile to Obama's administration. I am someone who will not forget that certain companies are sitting on assloads of cash right now, and want unrealistic promises of profit which they then promise they'll translate into opening up jobs once they get what they want from congress .............. jobs which will open up overseas, but they'll still be jobs opened up. That was another point in Biden's speech last night, that utter chutzpah, which should be getting more play.

Obama has many things he's accomplished, and it's not just wise, it's plain common sense to not just see the fall of unemployment, no matter how small, as something Obama can be proud of.

The sarcastic 'wise' type comments need to be reserved for the obstructionists and those who follow them. Are you one of them?


You're either with us or you're against us? Sounds familiar.
 
2012-09-07 01:04:22 PM

Duke Phillips' Singing Bears: skullkrusher: Duke Phillips' Singing Bears: It is my desire that caused my suffering.

ooh, forgive me Siddhārtha

Forgiveness is never required. It is your nature to be a sophist. You cannot deny your nature.


says the guy trying to get transcendental to avoid talking about employment number disappointments
 
2012-09-07 01:04:33 PM

DamnYankees: Prudent for him, personally? But its better for the economy if he were to do that than if the bank just sat on that money and did nothing.


This must be the dumbest line of reasoning of all time. Seriously.

How can you, a seemingly otherwise intelligent person, possibly think that spending on luxuries entirely financed by debt is good for the economy. You're advocating a massive safety net, and cushy jobs for everyone funded completely on debt! Shouldn't that trigger something in your brain that lets you fundamentally know this is a bad idea. I don't understand your thought process on this.

IT'S DEBT, IT ISN'T FREE MONEY!
 
2012-09-07 01:05:18 PM
Also, historically when employment growth is slow that means corporate profits aren't so hot either. Right now corporate profits are the highest they've ever been. Arguing about this or that government course of action or this or that government actor is rather missing the point.
 
2012-09-07 01:05:26 PM

Duke Phillips' Singing Bears: That would be a very foolish bank and they would be sure to lose their money. Banks used to not make bad bets on people they knew were going to spend their money on wine and women. I don't think even a modern bank would make such a bet.


Sure, but finish the line of reasoning. Eventually the bank loses their money and cuts off funding to the drunk. What happens to his lifestyle?
 
2012-09-07 01:05:30 PM
...is it just me or are the people who are and have been in favor of policies that are known, have been proven, and easily demonstrated to depress wages, like right-to-work, union busting, axing the minimum wage, and enhancing visa programs; and have led to job flight and deindustrialization like free trade agreements, deregulating factory closure, and preventing/lowering taxes that would preclude decapitalization; suddenly seem to be very, very concerned about low-wage job growth and creation, despite it being the source of the Bush-era low unemployment rates?
 
2012-09-07 01:05:57 PM

KarmicDisaster: DamnYankees: And we're back.

What happened, it was horrible. The whole universe blinked out for a minute.


I felt a great disturbance in the Force, as if millions of voices suddenly cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced.
 
2012-09-07 01:06:12 PM

SixPaperJoint: My intro econ classes were divided up by semester into Marco and Micro. It's a shame yours were not.


Don't worry, they were.
 
2012-09-07 01:06:23 PM
lh5.googleusercontent.com

Because obviously Republicans know how to make instantaneous momentum shifts.
 
2012-09-07 01:07:07 PM

MattStafford: possibly think that spending on luxuries entirely financed by debt is good for the economy.


Think of it in these terms - would it be good for the economy if a rich person bought some luxuries? I assume you think, all else being equal, yes, it would be.

So what if that rich person gives his money to a bank, who gives it to a drunk, who buys the luxuries. Shouldn't that also be a good thing?

Whether the drunk pays the bank back or not is sort of irrelevant to the economy at large. If I'm the drunk and someone is offering me unsecured money at a low interest rate, I'm confused why I *wouldn't* take that money and spend it on whatever I want.
 
2012-09-07 01:07:36 PM

Gaseous Anomaly: Again, most employment is in local services:

Ditch diggers and washing machine builders eat out more.
Restaurants open and expand, hiring.
Strip-mall owners buy new cars.
Restaurant employees and owners buy some ditches and washing machines.
Washing machine factory middle managers hire kids to mow their lawns. Kids take their girlfriends out for nice meals.

Of course SOME demand will fall off when the ditch-digging program winds down. And some is self-sustaining.



What is self sustaining about it?! If the government creates 1000 jobs by deficit spending, they will destroy 1000 jobs when they pay that debt down.
 
2012-09-07 01:08:37 PM

MattStafford: they will destroy 1000 jobs when they pay that debt down.


Because you say so?
 
2012-09-07 01:10:01 PM

Zumaki: [lh5.googleusercontent.com image 630x378]

Because obviously Republicans know how to make instantaneous momentum shifts.


They clearly do. That jump from 2008 to 2009 was a pretty instantaneous momentum shift
 
2012-09-07 01:11:05 PM

MattStafford: Gaseous Anomaly: Again, most employment is in local services:

Ditch diggers and washing machine builders eat out more.
Restaurants open and expand, hiring.
Strip-mall owners buy new cars.
Restaurant employees and owners buy some ditches and washing machines.
Washing machine factory middle managers hire kids to mow their lawns. Kids take their girlfriends out for nice meals.

Of course SOME demand will fall off when the ditch-digging program winds down. And some is self-sustaining.


What is self sustaining about it?! If the government creates 1000 jobs by deficit spending, they will destroy 1000 jobs when they pay that debt down.


you're ignoring the multiplier
 
2012-09-07 01:11:45 PM

DamnYankees: MattStafford: DamnYankees: How is that "distorted"? That's just part of the economy. Are you claiming that an economy with no military expenses is somehow "normal", and that the existence of a military "distorts" that baseline? That seems a little strange.

Government builds a military base in bumblefark Pennsylvania. Stores and people move to that town, because there is demand created from that military base. Government eventually shuts the base down. Those towns and stores that are now useless and failing would not have been there had the government not distorted the economy.

How is this different from the private sector?

GM builds a factory in bumblefark Pennsylvania. Stores and people move to that town, because there is demand created from that factory. GM eventually shuts the factory down. Those towns and stores that are now useless and failing would not have been there had GM not distorted the economy.

It's the exact same thing.


Except your scenerio actually happened in towns in bumblefark PA.

Mostly with the steel industry but you get the idea.

I mean I'm not an economics genius or anything but even I know that MattStafford doesn't have a grasp on the most simple of economics concepts.

Either he's really this stupid or just trolling.
 
2012-09-07 01:12:14 PM

DamnYankees: What I don't get is how this is different from private sector jobs. If I hire someone to build a house for me, is that not a real job because it eventually ends? I'm not paying those contractors in perpetuity or anything.


This is actually a great example to illustrate my point.

Suppose you hire someone to build a house for one. In situation one, you've worked for a while and have enough saved up for a down payment, along with a steady income to pay the mortgage, where the principal is reduced every month. In situation two, you just take out a massive mortgage with no real way to pay for it. The principal on the mortgage gets bigger every month In example one, you should be fine, and the economy in general should be fine. In example two, we get the housing bust, and everything is farked.

Which of those situations best describes what is going on with our government right now.
 
2012-09-07 01:12:14 PM

KarmicDisaster: DamnYankees: And we're back.

What happened, it was horrible. The whole universe blinked out for a minute.


Trust him, he's the Doctor.
 
2012-09-07 01:12:31 PM
Clearly we all want to see more growth.

It's time for the 'job creators' to step in and do what's best for the country and pivot off that low tax rate to start creating jobs to get America back to work!

Now, where are those job creators? Let me hear it! Anyone? Anyone at all?
 
2012-09-07 01:13:23 PM

ddam: tenpoundsofcheese: Dinki: adiabat: From 2002-2008 the worst it ever got was 13.5%.


It's almost as if something pretty bad happened to the economy in 2008...

Yes, we elected 0bama.

Average number of jobs created per month in 2011: 153,000
Average number of jobs created per month in 2012: 139,000

Conclusion: but, but, but, bbbbuush!

Whatever 0bama thinks he is doing to create jobs has failed.

So Obama is creating jobs but not nearly as fast as people want


Where do you get that "0bama is creating jobs"?? What has 0bama done to create jobs (he admitted that the shovel ready jobs was a failure).

No, the economy is creating jobs, fewer this year than last year which means the economy has no faith in whatever it is that 0bama claims he is doing to create jobs.
 
2012-09-07 01:14:31 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: No, the economy is creating jobs, fewer this year than last year which means the economy has no faith in whatever it is that 0bama claims he is doing to create jobs.


Because it's all Obama's fault and nothing to do with market forces in general.

Got it!
 
2012-09-07 01:14:48 PM
Corporate profits, last 2 presidential terms:

research.stlouisfed.org
 
2012-09-07 01:15:05 PM

Highroller48: I'm 100% certain that Obama needs to be reelected. I think Romney would be an economic disaster.

That said, I must admit that this report is NOT good news. It shows that job growth continues to be frighteningly sluggish, and that the biggest reason for this month's drop in the unemployment rate is people who stop looking.

Romney's "solutions" are bogus. Tax cuts don't create jobs. That's axiomatic, no matter what the Repubs tell you. There are, however, billions of dollars' worth of infrastructure projects that could be undertaken by the private and public sector, or a combination thereof, that would create hundreds of thousands of jobs NOW, and even provide a return on our investment by increasing the tax base and having more efficient roads, bridges, utilities, etc.

Unfortunately, all efforts to actually get these moving have been blocked by partisan chicanery in Congress. The Republicans have had numerous opportunities to put Americans to work, but they'd rather sacrifice them all just to try and put ONE guy out of a job.

The Republican apologists around here can deny it all they want, but no one's buying it, especially when their party freely and openly admits to hijacking the legislative process, regrdless of the consequences, just to sabotage the Obama administration.


Excellent. I may even say THIS ^^^
 
2012-09-07 01:15:47 PM

MattStafford: DamnYankees: What I don't get is how this is different from private sector jobs. If I hire someone to build a house for me, is that not a real job because it eventually ends? I'm not paying those contractors in perpetuity or anything.

This is actually a great example to illustrate my point.

Suppose you hire someone to build a house for one. In situation one, you've worked for a while and have enough saved up for a down payment, along with a steady income to pay the mortgage, where the principal is reduced every month. In situation two, you just take out a massive mortgage with no real way to pay for it. The principal on the mortgage gets bigger every month In example one, you should be fine, and the economy in general should be fine. In example two, we get the housing bust, and everything is farked.

Which of those situations best describes what is going on with our government right now.


What are you talking about? You do realize the government only funds about 1/3 of its expenditures with debt, right? It has revenue.

The government put up far more 'equity' in relation to debt than any private individual does in the case of a mortgage. For a mortgage, you might put up 20% in equity and take out a mortgage for the other 80%. For the government's expenses, it puts up about $2.5T in equity (the money it has from taxes) and about $1.1T in debt.

You're simply wrong. You seem like a well spoken and earnest guy, but your facts simply don't make sense.
 
2012-09-07 01:16:05 PM

Gaseous Anomaly: If they're lending it unsecured (as investors lend to governments), absolutely. Why would any rational profit-maximizing self-interested agent *turn down money*? If people's behavior is that far away from rational self-interest, where does that leave economic theory?

Ignoring that national debts don't have to be "paid back" in the sense personal debts do, he can determine whether borrowing more money than he can pay back is worth the eventual hit to his credit rating.


Absolutely? Even though when the bank eventually cuts him off, he'll have to go from living the high life to living a shack? Wouldn't it be better advice for him to live within his means? You basically just said that it was a good idea for everyone who took subprime loans to take those loans, you do realize that, right?
 
2012-09-07 01:17:21 PM

ddam: Obama has provided a specific job plan.


Really? Where?

What is his job plan and how is that one different than the one that has the economy creating fewer jobs in 2012 than in 2011?
 
2012-09-07 01:17:24 PM

Infernalist: The GOP and the ignorant among us insist on treating the government as if it were a 'person' with 'personal' debts, assets, income and other individual aspects to an individual economic situation. They literally go cross-eyed when you try to explain to them that national debt is not a bad thing in the proper amount and utilized correctly.

They'll go bug-eyed if you try to show them how national debt has actual 'value'.


Please explain. The debt will have to be paid back eventually, either by reduction in services and increase in taxation, or a dramatic devaluation of the dollar.
 
2012-09-07 01:18:17 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: ddam: Obama has provided a specific job plan.

Really? Where?

What is his job plan and how is that one different than the one that has the economy creating fewer jobs in 2012 than in 2011?


Don't worry, he'll go over the details once you peons elect his as President.

At least that's what Romney told us. ;)
 
2012-09-07 01:18:28 PM

SuperTramp: MindStalker: Would you like Fries with that Hope and Change.

Infernalist: You're carrying water for the very people who see you as little more than a serf. Even if you're just trolling, you're not helping the situation at all.

Nah, he's a temporarily-embarrassed millionaire. All of the serfs who support Republicans think of themselves that way.


Actually I was just being sarcastic. Troll easily?
 
2012-09-07 01:19:22 PM
I was told quite clearly that we lost 4.1 million jobs last month.
 
2012-09-07 01:19:37 PM
As long as you're going to the store and the shelves are not empty, I'm not seeing a problem with this. Some level of unemployment (or people not in the workforce) is healthy. Furthermore, the more productive individuals become, either because of technology or additional human capital, the more people will be unemployed or not in the labor force. Until you start seeing shortages of goods and services, I wouldn't worry about it that much. What I would worry about is how are we going to support the people who are unemployed and not in the workforce. I think that we need to do that. Nobody in this country should starve to death or go homeless or go without healthcare, because there aren't enough jobs to go around. We can't force companies to hire people, and economically it's better for the country as a whole to pay people to remain unemployed up to a certain level. Perhaps that's what we need to be focusing on, rather than forcing companies to create jobs they don't need. Perhaps the better solution is to start taxing businesses at a higher rate than we are and using those funds to support those who are not in the workforce for whatever reason.
 
2012-09-07 01:20:11 PM

DamnYankees: How is this different from the private sector?

GM builds a factory in bumblefark Pennsylvania. Stores and people move to that town, because there is demand created from that factory. GM eventually shuts the factory down. Those towns and stores that are now useless and failing would not have been there had GM not distorted the economy.

It's the exact same thing.



Well, the exact same thing, except GM has to respond to market pressures. The government does not. I'm not saying that GM could do the exact same thing, and distort the economy through things like that. I'm just saying, it is far less likely for the private sector to do that on a massive scale like the government is able to do.
 
2012-09-07 01:20:41 PM

Mrtraveler01: tenpoundsofcheese: No, the economy is creating jobs, fewer this year than last year which means the economy has no faith in whatever it is that 0bama claims he is doing to create jobs.

Because it's all Obama's fault and nothing to do with market forces in general.

Got it!


Good, you are learning. Now you should try to understand what influences market forces.

If companies see an anti-business, anti-success President who doesn't have a clue about how to improve the economy, they don't have faith in the economic strength and they don't hire.
 
2012-09-07 01:21:08 PM

MattStafford: DamnYankees: How is this different from the private sector?

GM builds a factory in bumblefark Pennsylvania. Stores and people move to that town, because there is demand created from that factory. GM eventually shuts the factory down. Those towns and stores that are now useless and failing would not have been there had GM not distorted the economy.

It's the exact same thing.


Well, the exact same thing, except GM has to respond to market pressures. The government does not. I'm not saying that GM could do the exact same thing, and distort the economy through things like that. I'm just saying, it is far less likely for the private sector to do that on a massive scale like the government is able to do.


I still have no idea what your definition of "distortion" is. It seems to consist off entirely of things the government does that the private sector also does, the government just does more of it.
 
2012-09-07 01:21:50 PM

MattStafford: Infernalist: The GOP and the ignorant among us insist on treating the government as if it were a 'person' with 'personal' debts, assets, income and other individual aspects to an individual economic situation. They literally go cross-eyed when you try to explain to them that national debt is not a bad thing in the proper amount and utilized correctly.

They'll go bug-eyed if you try to show them how national debt has actual 'value'.

Please explain. The debt will have to be paid back eventually, either by reduction in services and increase in taxation, or a dramatic devaluation of the dollar.


You're actually painfully wrong in your basic understanding of national debt.

National debt is an 'asset'. It is not repaid, but is rather seen as a stake in the issuing nation. Our national debt pays 'interest' to the holders of that debt and is seen as a valued form of revenue for those holders. It is NEVER repaid, for the most part, but rather simply paid down to a reasonable amount(determined by economic geniuses by means of formula that I don't even pretend to grasp fully).

The Government Is Not A Person. The Government's Debt Does Not Function In The Same Manner As Your Debt. You Can Not Use The Same Rules, It Doesn't Work That Way.
 
2012-09-07 01:22:53 PM

DamnYankees: Again - how is this different from the private sector? Yes, of course, when people get fired it hurts the economy. But you're essentially arguing this means they should never have been hired in the first place. And that doesn't make any sense.


In some cases, yes, they shouldn't be hired. If Google took out a billion dollar loan, and hired people to dig ditches and fill them back up, that would be terrible for the economy. It is just that the government is far more likely to do that, because it is politically popular to hire people and spend money.

And I have problems with private debt as well. Student loan debt is a huge issue. Financial debt is a huge issue. Mortgage debt is still a huge issue.
 
2012-09-07 01:22:55 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: If companies see an anti-business, anti-success President who doesn't have a clue about how to improve the economy, they don't have faith in the economic strength and they don't hire.


Holy Hyperbole Batman!

Anti-Success? Really? Give me a farking break dude! 

/BTW: How come the stock market has done the best under Obama than under any other President if hes' so "anti-business" and "anti-success"?
 
2012-09-07 01:23:02 PM

Infernalist: The Government Is Not A Person. The Government's Debt Does Not Function In The Same Manner As Your Debt. You Can Not Use The Same Rules, It Doesn't Work That Way.


It's even worse than that - debt is an asset to a person as well. There's a reason you have a higher credit score if you have some debt rather than no debt.
 
2012-09-07 01:23:04 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: ddam: Obama has provided a specific job plan.

Really? Where?

What is his job plan and how is that one different than the one that has the economy creating fewer jobs in 2012 than in 2011?


Link

It took all of 30 seconds on Google to find that. It's the same act that the GOP has been blocking in Congress for the past 365 days.
 
2012-09-07 01:23:07 PM

Mrtraveler01: tenpoundsofcheese: ddam: Obama has provided a specific job plan.

Really? Where?

What is his job plan and how is that one different than the one that has the economy creating fewer jobs in 2012 than in 2011?

Don't worry, he'll go over the details once you peons elect his as President.



So you don't have an answer about how the person in office who has been at this for almost 4 years plans to improve the job situation? Figures. Where is the 0bama job plan that ddam claims 0bama has?
 
2012-09-07 01:23:31 PM

Dinki: adiabat: From 2002-2008 the worst it ever got was 13.5%.


It's almost as if something pretty bad Bush happened to the economy in 2008...


Better
 
2012-09-07 01:24:14 PM

DamnYankees: I like in your telling of the story, the money earned by these individuals does absolutely nothing. They don't spend it on food, consumables or entertainment. It just sits there waiting for a crash.


And I like that his story always (he's told several varieties of the same story) includes the public worker doing something useless. Such as digging holes or ditches and then filling them back up. Never does that worker do something useful like building or repairing roads and bridges. Or training to fill jobs in new industries.
 
2012-09-07 01:24:15 PM

MattStafford: If Google took out a billion dollar loan, and hired people to dig ditches and fill them back up, that would be terrible for the economy. It is just that the government is far more likely to do that, because it is politically popular to hire people and spend money.


It would only be bad for the economy to the extent it hurt Google. It would actually be a relatively good thing for the economy if Apple did this, for example, since Apple is sitting on a huge amount of cash which is not doing anything to help the economy.
 
2012-09-07 01:24:20 PM

ferretman: Spiffy? It's a total failure. only +96,000 jobs....with 368,000 people who dropped out and almost 89,000,000 not in the work force.


89,000,000 (Citation?) not in the work force? There are about 200,000,000 people between 16 and 65 in this country. That means 45% of them aren't "in the work force." How many of those are by choice? Take out all of the stay-at-home moms and dads, the kids who go to school rather than work and what actual information does that 89,000,000 give you other than "BOOGIE BOOGIE BIG NUMBERS!!!"?
 
2012-09-07 01:24:22 PM

Infernalist: You're actually painfully wrong in your basic understanding of national debt.


See also:

Link
 
2012-09-07 01:25:11 PM
Hmmmm, poor jobs report, eh?

Nothing a little tax cut for the rich can't cure!
 
2012-09-07 01:25:31 PM

MattStafford: DamnYankees: How is this different from the private sector?

GM builds a factory in bumblefark Pennsylvania. Stores and people move to that town, because there is demand created from that factory. GM eventually shuts the factory down. Those towns and stores that are now useless and failing would not have been there had GM not distorted the economy.

It's the exact same thing.


Well, the exact same thing, except GM has to respond to market pressures. The government does not. I'm not saying that GM could do the exact same thing, and distort the economy through things like that. I'm just saying, it is far less likely for the private sector to do that on a massive scale like the government is able to do.


This is perhaps the dumbest thing I've read about economics on Fark.

How the fark do you explain Detroit and the fact that the auto industry is the lifeblood of that city and therefore the cities fate depends on how the Big 3 are doing?

Face it, the real answer is that it's ok when private industry "manipulates economies" because it's not the government because government is bad...or something.
 
2012-09-07 01:25:35 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: Mrtraveler01: tenpoundsofcheese: No, the economy is creating jobs, fewer this year than last year which means the economy has no faith in whatever it is that 0bama claims he is doing to create jobs.

Because it's all Obama's fault and nothing to do with market forces in general.

Got it!

Good, you are learning. Now you should try to understand what influences market forces.

If companies see an anti-business, anti-success President who doesn't have a clue about how to improve the economy, they don't have faith in the economic strength and they don't hire.


Actually, as I mentioned before, the slope of the recovery under Obama on the unemployment chart above is the same as other growth periods. Jobs are not being created at a slower rate.
 
2012-09-07 01:26:26 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: Mrtraveler01: tenpoundsofcheese: ddam: Obama has provided a specific job plan.

Really? Where?

What is his job plan and how is that one different than the one that has the economy creating fewer jobs in 2012 than in 2011?

Don't worry, he'll go over the details once you peons elect his as President.



So you don't have an answer about how the person in office who has been at this for almost 4 years plans to improve the job situation? Figures. Where is the 0bama job plan that ddam claims 0bama has?


Where is the jobs plan from the guy who's spent nearly a decade campaigning for President?
 
2012-09-07 01:26:57 PM

DamnYankees: MattStafford: possibly think that spending on luxuries entirely financed by debt is good for the economy.

Think of it in these terms - would it be good for the economy if a rich person bought some luxuries? I assume you think, all else being equal, yes, it would be.

So what if that rich person gives his money to a bank, who gives it to a drunk, who buys the luxuries. Shouldn't that also be a good thing?

Whether the drunk pays the bank back or not is sort of irrelevant to the economy at large. If I'm the drunk and someone is offering me unsecured money at a low interest rate, I'm confused why I *wouldn't* take that money and spend it on whatever I want.


If the rich person put his money in a bank, and the bank loaned that money out to a poor person, no I would not have any issue with that. Assuming the poor person blows it, the end result is a transfer of money from the rich person to whereever that money went.

What I am railing against is the creation of money through debt. Suppose the rich person puts 1000 bucks in a bank. Through fractional reserve lending, that 1000 bucks eventually turns into 10,000 bucks. Now if they blow all of that 10,000, then we're going to have some serious issues.
 
Displayed 50 of 714 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report