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  
•       •       •

1194 clicks; posted to Politics » on 07 Sep 2012 at 11:10 AM (2 years 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 02:38:51 PM

MattStafford: NO IT ISN'T! It is bad for the economy! My God, I just don't understand you guys.


Why is it bad for the economy? You can't just assert it is, you need to actually argue it is.

I posted a chart earlier which shows you are objectively wrong about this - when the government literally gives free money to poor people for nothing in order to buy food, the knock-on effect that has produces $1.74 of economic growth for every dollar spent. That's empirical reality.

So, given that information, why is it bad to simply give money to people for doing nothing?
 
2012-09-07 02:39:03 PM

MattStafford: Two, those people can be employed productively somewhere else if a job comes along at a lower level of pay.


So you're just relying on wishful thinking that hopefully these unemployed ditch diggers will be able to find work elsewhere?

And you call us the crazy ones.
 
2012-09-07 02:39:09 PM

skullkrusher: Mrtraveler01: skullkrusher: Mrtraveler01: skullkrusher: Mrtraveler01: lennavan: What's so wrong with (C) and why do you feel it results in job losses elsewhere?

Because you're stealing money from the job creators by gun point obviously.

Matt hasn't said anything remotely similar to that. You are much better than that, Mr T

Sorry, I just get tired of that "Government can only hurt the economy" rhetoric that he seems to be peddling.

he hasn't said that. He thinks spending on unproductive projects is a bad thing and he's right, it is far less desirable than the alternative. He's just missing how even spending on frivolous things can drive economic growth leading to increased revenues

But he seems to think that "it's more likely for the government to do this than private industry". Like I said, travel though the Midwest and tell me that "it's more likely for government to distort the economy".

I'll stick with what he's said rather than trying to read his mind


He did actually say it though.

MattStafford: Distortion is allocating the resources of an economy into unproductive areas via the use of debt. Government goes into debt to hire people to dig ditches in the middle of nowhere, the economy is distorted. Google goes into debt to hire people to dig ditches in the middle of nowhere, the economy is distorted. Government is far more likely to do this than Google is, however.

 
2012-09-07 02:39:19 PM

Snowflake Tubbybottom: Pincy: tenpoundsofcheese: KarmicDisaster: 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.

154,000 jobs a month in 2011
139,000 jobs a month in 2012
That slope ain't good.

Now if only the Republicans hadn't filibustered his jobs plan. I wonder what the slope would have looked like then?

Frankly Obama's prognosis skills are severely under developed. Some 40 months later after passing his stimulus bill saying the passage would prevent us going over 8% unemployment and yet here we still are just might be an indication that his jobs bill might have also under performed. Let us not also forget his estimate for the ACA cost when he was pushing that.

But it always makes for better political theater when you can blame someone else.


Obama had to water down his stimulus bill to some extent in order to get enough Republicans to go for it. Yes, it needed to be bigger, but that is not all on him.
 
2012-09-07 02:40:13 PM

sprawl15: More_Like_A_Stain: Apple's money is certainly out doing things. Things that bring a profit. If that profit is greater than the cost of borrowing money to do more things, then wouldn't they be stupid to use their own money? Even if the things they did with the borrowed money produced nothing of value?

This is particularly ignorant considering that this is exactly how businesses do business. They don't fund new project with money that would otherwise just sit in a basement. They take out loans and have revenue projections. Very, very few setups in the contracting world allow one to have initial investments already paid for on spinup - payments are tied to events as much as practicable.


debt to annual rev ratios for some major companies:

•IBM- 2-1

•Dupont - 3-1

•United Technologies - 3-1

•Boeing - 4-1

•Caterpillar - 14-1

•JP Morgan Chase - 50-1

US government is just over 1-1
 
2012-09-07 02:40:52 PM

lennavan: MattStafford: DamnYankees: 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.

Distortion is allocating the resources of an economy into unproductive areas via the use of debt. Government goes into debt to hire people to dig ditches in the middle of nowhere, the economy is distorted. Google goes into debt to hire people to dig ditches in the middle of nowhere, the economy is distorted. Government is far more likely to do this than Google is, however.

And note, the fact that it is funded by debt is key.

This is such a trip. This is the most well spoken intelligent sounding derp I have ever read. I mean, if you turn your brain off and just read, it really sounds like you know what you're talking about. But if someone were to even for a moment actually think about what you post it is just so clearly and fundamentally retarded. I love it. I really do.


Just so everyone here is aware.

You have to turn your brain off to believe that going massively into debt to hire people to dig ditches in the middle of nowhere is a bad idea, not the other way around.

I repeat.

Brain Off: You shouldn't dig ditches, funded by debt, in the middle of nowhere. Brain On: You should dig ditches, funded by debt, in the middle of nowhere.

This is what Keynesians actually believe.
 
2012-09-07 02:41:36 PM

lennavan: MattStafford: lennavan: 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.

Uh, actually that would be great for the economy. I dont think you understand how the economy works dude.

You are an idiot.

How can so many seemingly otherwise intelligent people think that going into debt and spending that money on something unproductive is good. It is mind boggling.

No one feels that way. We just don't agree building bridges and roads is unproductive. You see, I drove on a road to get to work today and under a bridge (which had train tracks on it). These things don't build themselves you know.*

*you didnt know, did you?


Do you read my comments, or just skim through them? I'M farkING FOR BUILDING BRIDGES AND ROADS!
 
2012-09-07 02:41:47 PM

lennavan: skullkrusher: Mrtraveler01: skullkrusher: Mrtraveler01: skullkrusher: Mrtraveler01: lennavan: What's so wrong with (C) and why do you feel it results in job losses elsewhere?

Because you're stealing money from the job creators by gun point obviously.

Matt hasn't said anything remotely similar to that. You are much better than that, Mr T

Sorry, I just get tired of that "Government can only hurt the economy" rhetoric that he seems to be peddling.

he hasn't said that. He thinks spending on unproductive projects is a bad thing and he's right, it is far less desirable than the alternative. He's just missing how even spending on frivolous things can drive economic growth leading to increased revenues

But he seems to think that "it's more likely for the government to do this than private industry". Like I said, travel though the Midwest and tell me that "it's more likely for government to distort the economy".

I'll stick with what he's said rather than trying to read his mind

He did actually say it though.

MattStafford: Distortion is allocating the resources of an economy into unproductive areas via the use of debt. Government goes into debt to hire people to dig ditches in the middle of nowhere, the economy is distorted. Google goes into debt to hire people to dig ditches in the middle of nowhere, the economy is distorted. Government is far more likely to do this than Google is, however.


oh, so he did...
well, he's right I suppose. Government is far more likely to do this than GOOG. GOOG doesn't stand to benefit from make-work projects. Given the state of our infrastructure, however, I don't think the gubmint is gonna be paying people to fill in ditches they just dug
 
2012-09-07 02:41:52 PM

BojanglesPaladin: Pincy: I don't understand why Obama doesn't just spend the money he needs to stimulate the economy and create jobs? It's almost like he can't just spend money but has to ask permission from somebody else.

I know Americans are supposed to have a short memory and all, but surely you have not forgotten that Ogama asked for and was given 800 BILLION dollars? Just for the one stimulus. Not counting the TARP money, Auto-Bailouts, and various others?


I know you think that the stimulus bill was a lot, but most serious economists predicted at the time that it was not nearly enough. And what he originally asked for was not what he got because he had to water it down in order to get enough Republicans to vote for it.
 
2012-09-07 02:42:10 PM

MattStafford: You have to turn your brain off to believe that going massively into debt to hire people to dig ditches in the middle of nowhere is a bad idea, not the other way around.


Wow, you sure told all of those people proposing we go into debt to hire ditch diggers in the middle of nowhere!
 
2012-09-07 02:43:04 PM

KarmicDisaster: Old people, and more of 'em. And it is going to get worse. There is nothing that Obama or Romney can do about it.


I agree with that. Per Capita employment rates will continue to plummet as the Baby Boomers head to retirement in the next decade.

But I DO think that they are still somewhat relevant today. Just not for much longer.
 
2012-09-07 02:43:05 PM
Wait, who said we should dig ditches in the middle of nowhere? Keynes?
 
2012-09-07 02:43:15 PM

MattStafford: Let's go billions into debt so we can pay people to do absolutely nothing.


First, where is all this money that we're borrowing to pay to people to do absolutely nothing? Second, they're not doing nothing, they're spending that money in the economy, which begets more economic activity. This isn't terribly complicated.
 
2012-09-07 02:43:17 PM

MattStafford: You have to turn your brain off to believe that going massively into debt to hire people to dig ditches in the middle of nowhere is a bad idea, not the other way around.


True, we can just give them unemployment benefits and get a much higher ROI instead.
 
2012-09-07 02:43:19 PM

DamnYankees: I like how you missed the most obvious option:

(F) Economy grows, and we use the growth to pay back the loan.


This. Only. Can. Happen. If. The. ROI. On. The. Debt. Is. Greater. Than. One.
 
2012-09-07 02:43:37 PM

MattStafford: lennavan: MattStafford: lennavan: 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.

Uh, actually that would be great for the economy. I dont think you understand how the economy works dude.

You are an idiot.

How can so many seemingly otherwise intelligent people think that going into debt and spending that money on something unproductive is good. It is mind boggling.

No one feels that way. We just don't agree building bridges and roads is unproductive. You see, I drove on a road to get to work today and under a bridge (which had train tracks on it). These things don't build themselves you know.*

*you didnt know, did you?

Do you read my comments, or just skim through them? I'M farkING FOR BUILDING BRIDGES AND ROADS!


Right and you're against digging ditches in the middle of nowhere. Got it.

Hey, what happened to our chance for agreement? I'm all for paying for things rather than going into debt. Why can't we just agree we should raise taxes on corporations, which currently enjoy all-time record profits so the can handle it without any effect on the economy or jobs whatsoever?
 
2012-09-07 02:43:51 PM

MattStafford: DamnYankees: I like how you missed the most obvious option:

(F) Economy grows, and we use the growth to pay back the loan.

This. Only. Can. Happen. If. The. ROI. On. The. Debt. Is. Greater. Than. One.


Giving poor people free money does this.
 
2012-09-07 02:43:56 PM

CPennypacker: I don't think you understand how treasuries work.


Please explain.
 
2012-09-07 02:45:03 PM

Karma Curmudgeon: China can't say no and they never will be able to so long as their currency is tied to ours at a fixed rate. And as soon as they untie it, the let loose an inflation genie that they'll have no ability to control. They are just as much over the barrel as we are.


Agreed that they're over the barrel, but they can and will say no. They already started lowering their treasury holdings.
 
2012-09-07 02:45:50 PM

DamnYankees: MattStafford: DamnYankees: I like how you missed the most obvious option:

(F) Economy grows, and we use the growth to pay back the loan.

This. Only. Can. Happen. If. The. ROI. On. The. Debt. Is. Greater. Than. One.

Giving poor people free money does this.


But then you are rewarding people for being poor! We'd much rather go into another Great Depression than allow one poor person to get something they don't deserve.
 
2012-09-07 02:46:03 PM

DamnYankees: MattStafford: NO IT ISN'T! It is bad for the economy! My God, I just don't understand you guys.

Why is it bad for the economy? You can't just assert it is, you need to actually argue it is.

I posted a chart earlier which shows you are objectively wrong about this - when the government literally gives free money to poor people for nothing in order to buy food, the knock-on effect that has produces $1.74 of economic growth for every dollar spent. That's empirical reality.

So, given that information, why is it bad to simply give money to people for doing nothing?


Because Bush tried that with his stimulus checks and it did not work?

Never mind that if he had spread it out over the year's worth of paychecks, we'd have gotten a nice multiplier as people had a little extra each month instead of a large wad to blow.

I'm still flabbergasted that there are people that have so much hate in their hearts that they would rather let people go hungry than pay for food stamps. These are the same people that I hear "They should go to a food bank", and when asked if they donate to a food bank, they say "No".

//I do donate to the local food bank(s). The county one, and a Lutheran church near my home.
 
2012-09-07 02:46:24 PM

lennavan: What's so wrong with (C) and why do you feel it results in job losses elsewhere?

Or (F): DamnYankees: (F) Economy grows, and we use the growth to pay back the loan.



Raising taxes elsewhere means less spending elsewhere. Are you serious about that?

And you can only outgrow your debt if the ROI on your investments is greater than one.
 
2012-09-07 02:46:27 PM

CPennypacker: Wait, who said we should dig ditches in the middle of nowhere? Keynes?


the guy who first said "The world will always need ditch diggers". He has noticed a dearth in the level of ditchdigging worldwide and would hate to be proven wrong after all these years.
 
2012-09-07 02:46:44 PM

MattStafford: CPennypacker: I don't think you understand how treasuries work.

Please explain.


Are you being willfully ignorant here? I'm serious. Before I thought you were smart and misguided, I'm having to rethink my position on that unfortunately.
 
2012-09-07 02:48:10 PM

skullkrusher: CPennypacker: Wait, who said we should dig ditches in the middle of nowhere? Keynes?

the guy who first said "The world will always need ditch diggers". He has noticed a dearth in the level of ditchdigging worldwide and would hate to be proven wrong after all these years.


I'm surprised folks like Caterpillar haven't killed off the ditch digging industry yet.
 
2012-09-07 02:48:21 PM

MFL: This jobs report was predictably horrible. Now we get another round of QE which is going to do nothing more than artificially prop up the stock market, raise food prices, raise gas prices, and stall out the economy again in a few months as all the middle class discretionary income gets eaten up. (like it has done every year for the last 3 farking years!)

Despite the drama over the last few days, this president's economic record is pathetic. We are not recovering, we are treading water. Only cool-aid drinkers and fools believe the nonsense about 4.5 million jobs he was selling. Hell we lost 5 million, so in reality we're not even back to go yet, which is absolutely pathetic if we are actually in this supposed recovery.

Lets break it down.

The Reagan recovery.
[www.nationalreview.com image 630x378]

The Clinton recovery
[www.nationalreview.com image 630x378]

the Oba-meh recovery
[www.nationalreview.com image 630x378]

You can polish turds, slay strawmen, and turn a convention into a big emotional Oprah rally, it doesn't negate the fact that Mr. Obama has no idea how to fix the economy and is floundering because his hype is wearing out.



You are showing the population ratio graph, which does not take into account composition of the population and the the larger and larger numbers of people leaving the workforce since 1983 due to aging, so the scales will be different and of course since it is a ratio the numbers can't be compared directly; a 1% change on the first graph is actually a lot smaller in absolute numbers than a 1% change on the last graph. There are roughly 50% more retired people over 65 now than there were in 1983, so using a ratio is not what you want to do. Both of those recoveries would be dwarfed by the shear size of the Bush recession that has to be fixed, you can't compare the graphs directly because they are a ratio. Not sure why you picked those data presentations to make your point, it does seem clear that Obama was very effective in halting the slide, but it is going to be difficult to recover until middle class spendable income goes up.
 
2012-09-07 02:49:05 PM

skullkrusher: MattStafford: What I am against, and the only thing I am against, is paying for unproductive expenditures via debt.

I can't see how anyone can disagree with this. If that's your point, you're correct. Spending money (derived from debt or revenues, doesn't matter) on useless shiat is stupid.

There's got to be more to what you've been saying than that though.


No. That is all I'm saying.

I've said several times I'm in favor of going into debt for productive things, like education or necessary infrastructure. I've said I'm in favor of wealth redistribution.

The only thing I'm against is going into debt and using it to pay for things with an ROI less than one.

And I'm getting mocked.
 
2012-09-07 02:49:20 PM

MattStafford: Karma Curmudgeon: China can't say no and they never will be able to so long as their currency is tied to ours at a fixed rate. And as soon as they untie it, the let loose an inflation genie that they'll have no ability to control. They are just as much over the barrel as we are.

Agreed that they're over the barrel, but they can and will say no. They already started lowering their treasury holdings.


If they want an export economy, no, they can't.
 
2012-09-07 02:49:34 PM

Pincy: I know you think that the stimulus bill was a lot, but most serious economists predicted at the time that it was not nearly enough. And what he originally asked for was not what he got because he had to water it down in order to get enough Republicans to vote for it.


Short memory again. THREE Republicans voted for it.SEVEN Democrats voted against it. This is not one of the ones you can just yell 'obstructionist!' about.


CPennypacker: When those projections were made, they were based on assumptions about the depths of the recession that were later discovered to be inaccurate.


So we agree. They were wrong, and it didn't work.

Obama's plan were unsuccesful in turning the economy around.
 
2012-09-07 02:49:44 PM

BojanglesPaladin: CPennypacker: It dipped all the way to 10 in October of 2009. its up from 10. Are you suggesting that between the end of January and the end of October 2009, Obama drafted legislation, passed it, and it took full effect, dropping the unemployment rate by another 1.7%?

Are you suggesting that Obama and the Demoicrats were wrong when he said that his Stimulus package passed in February of 2009 would see "nearly 75% of the funds released in the first year" and that it would "stop the job loss?". The Job Impact of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan" from Christina Romer, chairwoman of the president's Council of Economic Advisers, and Jared Bernstein, the vice president's top economic adviser predicted that with the stimulus, unemployment rate would peak at just under 8 percent in 2009.(It hit 10% in October of that year).

The stimulus package was enacted in February 2009 and signed into law on February 17, 2009, by President Barack Obama. He promised the stimulus would keep the unemployment rate below 8 percent. It cost around 800 BILIION dollars.

Unemployment rate when Obama won the election: 6.7%
Unemployment rate when Obama took Office: 8.3%
Unemployment rate when Obama Passed the Stimulus bill: 8.1%
Unemployment rate one year after Obama Passed the Stimulus bill: 9.8%
Unemployment rate 18 months after Obama passed the Stimulus Bill: 9.6%
Unemployment rate Today: 8.1%

The numbers are the numbers. Under Obama, joblessness has never been below 8 percent, and it peaked at 10 percent in October 2009. He said himself that if he couldn't get the unemployment rate down below 8% he would be a one term president.

I don't care about 'fault'. I'm simply stating that Obama said he could fix it, he tried to fix it, he was given 800 Billion dollars to fix it with, and it's not fixed.

This is not a success story. I know we all wish he had been more succesful than he was. But wishing doesn't change the reality that the fact that unemployment today is pretty much wher ...


Simple thing to do: vote out all the GOPs in congress who did everything they could to stymie Obama's plans.
 
2012-09-07 02:49:53 PM

MFL: it doesn't negate the fact that Mr. Obama has no idea how to fix the economy and is floundering because his hype is wearing out.


In times past the private sector acted to improve things, this time it isn't. And I'd love to know what you think would fix the economy.
 
2012-09-07 02:50:03 PM

BigBooper: Rick Santelli over at CNBC sounds like he's going to have a stroke.

He's red faced and screaming that this is part of some conspiracy to report a 7.9 number before the election.


Am I the only one who finds it weird that MSNBC is left-leaning while it's sister station CNBC operates as some odd mirror-universe version of it?
 
2012-09-07 02:50:16 PM

lennavan: So you raise taxes on the wealthy. Whether Mitt Romney pays 14% or 20% isn't going to change his buying habits dude.


You act as though the money he has in bank accounts isn't out there doing things. Like buying US Treasuries and funding the US government. The money isn't just sitting in a vault.
 
2012-09-07 02:50:40 PM
I'm creating an alt named "My_ROI_Is_Greater_Than_One"

/Jeez, guys, it's Friday. Have a beer already.
 
2012-09-07 02:50:47 PM

DamnYankees: Debeo Summa Credo: Yeah, they're already buying treasury securities but you think we should issue more debt.

Selling treasury securities *is* issuing debt.

You realize that, right?


Of course.

Debeo Summa Credo: The market cant collectively sell the t-bills they already have to buy the new ones we issue.

What? I'm starting to think you don't understand what t-bills are. The market doesn't sell them. The government does.

If you are arguing that the market doesn't have the liquidity to buy t-bills, you're just empirically wrong. I mean...we're selling our t-bills fine. Clearly there's demand for them. That's not now nor has it ever been a problem.


Perhaps I've been unclear. Let's go back to the original argument that started this discussion: Someone upthread argued that the government should increase spending because it creates jobs and gives those workers cash to spend that creates more jobs which continues ot cycle through the system, etc., etc..

I asked where the cash for the increased spending should come from. Someone else suggested 'borrow', arguing that it was the best option at today's interest rates. I then said that the money used to buy the increased issuence of treasuries had to come from somewhere. I am not arguing that there isn't demand for treasury securities, you are correct that there is robust demand. Rather, I'm simply stating that issuing additional treasury securities will draw capital away from somewhere else. The capital drawn from somewhere else will have an opposite, negative effect on the economy. It's technically not a zero sum game, depending on where capital comes from and what it is used for by the govt, but most Keynesians of fark seem to think its a free lunch. That you can just borrow to finance govt spending and get free demand.

Here's the last discussion between you and I:

Debeo Summa Credo: Banks and lenders don't just sit on money. That's the part you're missing. The money used by the bank/investor to fund the drunk/Keynesian borrowing would otherwise have been used somewhere else.

Yeah, it's being used to buy treasury bonds - that's the point. This argument makes no sense in the context of low interest rates. If people with money were actually willing to invest their funds in private enterprise, why the hell would they be buying treasury bonds with negative real yields? But they are, for whatever reason. And while they are willing to do it, we should take advantage.


If investors already had all their money in treasury bonds, then there's nowhere else to borrow from - we couldn't issue another penny in debt in the market. Of course, that's not the case. Investors are buying treasuries, but they also have other assets and other investments. In order to buy the incremental treasuries that you think we should issue, those investors will have to liquidate other investments.

So I ask again: which asset class should capital providers turn away from to buy the treasuries that will fund additional keynesian spending? Mortgages? Municipals? Commercial loans? There isn't a pile of cash in some vault somewhere, while the rich owner looks at it wistfully thinking " if only the treasury would issue some more debt at 50 bps per year I could do something with this cash."
 
2012-09-07 02:50:55 PM

MattStafford: Raising taxes elsewhere means less spending elsewhere. Are you serious about that?


No it doesn't. If you raise taxes on a billionaire, they aren't going to suddenly cut back their spending dude.

MattStafford: And you can only outgrow your debt if the ROI on your investments is greater than one.


Maybe in a theoretical isolated situation. In the real world that's far too simplistic. There is more to economic growth than whatever isolated stimulus package you propose to put together. For instance, my city already has roads. We can continue to take the returns on that one.
 
2012-09-07 02:51:02 PM

BojanglesPaladin: Obama's plan were unsuccesful in turning the economy around.


If the economy is so bad how come corporate profits are at an all time high?
 
2012-09-07 02:51:28 PM

MattStafford: The only thing I'm against is going into debt and using it to pay for things with an ROI less than one.


that's the thing. Virtually nothing the government spends on domestically will generate an ROI of less than 1. Some things will lead to greater productivity boosts (roads and bridges) than others (ditches and crop circles) but in the end the ROI will always be at least in the vicinity of 1
 
2012-09-07 02:51:29 PM

impaler: MattStafford: Am I living in crazy world? You guys think that going massively into debt and wasting all of that money is good for the economy. It is completely insane!

Gross Federal Debt per GDP:
[research.stlouisfed.org image 630x378]

Do you know what the US economy did following 1945?


Yeah, it utilized the fact that the rest of the industrialized world was in complete ruins, and seized economic dominance. It then grew out of the debt.

What is the likelihood of the US seizing economic dominance and growing out of our debt?
 
2012-09-07 02:51:34 PM

skykid: BigBooper: Rick Santelli over at CNBC sounds like he's going to have a stroke.

He's red faced and screaming that this is part of some conspiracy to report a 7.9 number before the election.

Am I the only one who finds it weird that MSNBC is left-leaning while it's sister station CNBC operates as some odd mirror-universe version of it?


I don't ever remember CNBC being such a shill for the GOP before 2009. Did I just not pay attention or something?
 
2012-09-07 02:51:53 PM

MattStafford: skullkrusher: MattStafford: What I am against, and the only thing I am against, is paying for unproductive expenditures via debt.

I can't see how anyone can disagree with this. If that's your point, you're correct. Spending money (derived from debt or revenues, doesn't matter) on useless shiat is stupid.

There's got to be more to what you've been saying than that though.

No. That is all I'm saying.

I've said several times I'm in favor of going into debt for productive things, like education or necessary infrastructure. I've said I'm in favor of wealth redistribution.

The only thing I'm against is going into debt and using it to pay for things with an ROI less than one.

And I'm getting mocked.


Then why did you turn down my "lets raise taxes idea?" If that's all you are saying, we should have had a great agreement there.
 
2012-09-07 02:52:28 PM

DamnYankees: MattStafford: If they paid you through debt, and you didn't do anything for them, it was bad.

This makes no sense at all. How is the fact that its debt relevant at all? If Google borrows the money from Jim Smith, how is that relevant? The existence of debt is merely a contractual relationship between the borrower and lender. It's completely irrelevant to whether or not the underlying transaction is a good idea.


Not via fractional reserve banking
 
2012-09-07 02:52:55 PM

KarmicDisaster: You are showing the population ratio graph, which does not take into account composition of the population and the the larger and larger numbers of people leaving the workforce since 1983 due to aging, so the scales will be different and of course since it is a ratio the numbers can't be compared directly; a 1% change on the first graph is actually a lot smaller in absolute numbers than a 1% change on the last graph. There are roughly 50% more retired people over 65 now than there were in 1983


In other words, as an economic indicator, his graphs are meaningless.

Even then, he couldn't align the time-frame for each graph and president.

This is the best "economic data" a right-winger can produce to paint Obama is a bad light, and it's not even economic data, it's demographics data, and it can't even be presented honestly.
 
2012-09-07 02:53:27 PM

skullkrusher: CPennypacker: Wait, who said we should dig ditches in the middle of nowhere? Keynes?

the guy who first said "The world will always need ditch diggers". He has noticed a dearth in the level of ditchdigging worldwide and would hate to be proven wrong after all these years.


Clearly you've never read this book:

img443.imageshack.us
 
2012-09-07 02:53:50 PM

skullkrusher: MattStafford: The only thing I'm against is going into debt and using it to pay for things with an ROI less than one.

that's the thing. Virtually nothing the government spends on domestically will generate an ROI of less than 1. Some things will lead to greater productivity boosts (roads and bridges) than others (ditches and crop circles) but in the end the ROI will always be at least in the vicinity of 1


I just think he has an incredibly simplistic view of economics. 

Nothing wrong with that by itself but when you start insulting people telling them that they're the morons for not agreeing with your simplistic view of economics, then you're just embarrassing yourself.
 
2012-09-07 02:54:30 PM

Mrtraveler01: Sorry, I just get tired of that "Government can only hurt the economy" rhetoric that he seems to be peddling.


HOLY farkING shiat DUDE. I'VE SAID NUMEROUS TIMES I'M IN FAVOR OF INFRASTRUCTURE AND EDUCATION INVESTMENT. I'VE SAID I'M IN FAVOR OF WEALTH REDISTRIBUTION. IN OTHER THREADS, I'VE SAID I'M IN FAVOR OF GOVERNMENT FUNDED R&D.

DON'T PUT WORDS IN MY MOUTH.
 
2012-09-07 02:55:03 PM

Debeo Summa Credo: Rather, I'm simply stating that issuing additional treasury securities will draw capital away from somewhere else.


And I'm arguing that the fact that people are willing to buy securities from the government at a negative real interest rate is evidence that there simply are no other viable opportunities for investment "somewhere else" where this money is willing to go.

Debeo Summa Credo: In order to buy the incremental treasuries that you think we should issue, those investors will have to liquidate other investments.


What other investments, exactly, do you think people have that they are turning away from in order to invest in a bond which offers a negative interest rate? Your theoretical construct makes sense and is nice, but its at odds with a reality where people are willingly investing in bonds at a negative rate.
 
2012-09-07 02:55:06 PM

dericwater: Simple thing to do: vote out all the GOPs in congress who did everything they could to stymie Obama's plans.


Your vote is yours to do with as you see fit.

But as I pointed out above, Obama pretty much GOT what he asked for in the Stimulus Bill that was supposed to use Keynsian economics and hasten a recovery through the use of 800 BIllion tax dollars. He signed it about a month after he took office and while the democrats still had effective control of both houses. But even then, more Democrats voted against it than Republicans voted for it.

But regardless of the whys and wherefores, The Stimulus did not produce the desired or promised results, despite the cost.
 
2012-09-07 02:55:44 PM

impaler: KarmicDisaster: You are showing the population ratio graph, which does not take into account composition of the population and the the larger and larger numbers of people leaving the workforce since 1983 due to aging, so the scales will be different and of course since it is a ratio the numbers can't be compared directly; a 1% change on the first graph is actually a lot smaller in absolute numbers than a 1% change on the last graph. There are roughly 50% more retired people over 65 now than there were in 1983

In other words, as an economic indicator, his graphs are meaningless.

Even then, he couldn't align the time-frame for each graph and president.

This is the best "economic data" a right-winger can produce to paint Obama is a bad light, and it's not even economic data, it's demographics data, and it can't even be presented honestly.


Do you have a better one, Laura?
 
2012-09-07 02:55:45 PM

Dusk-You-n-Me: MattStafford: Things that aren't productive and are funded by debt are destroying this country.

Like tax cuts for the wealthy.


Agreed. I'm fine with high taxes. I'm fine with wealth redistribution. I don't care. The only thing I care about is not going into debt and spending that money on unproductive things. That is it.
 
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