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.

(Washington Post)   Oh, look, another Rethuglican spouting off at the mouth about Medicare being unsustainable and people getting $3 in services for every dollar they put in and fark it, let's just sick the liberal fact checkers on him. See, I told you...oh, he's right?   (washingtonpost.com) divider line 754
    More: Obvious, Medicare, fact checking, John Barrasso, average wage  
•       •       •

2705 clicks; posted to Politics » on 20 Mar 2013 at 12:24 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-03-20 03:08:54 PM

DamnYankees: CPennypacker: It's true, he can. He has a great analogy that makes it really easy to understand, too.

Now that's comedy.


This a thousand times.
 
2013-03-20 03:09:03 PM

MyKingdomForYourHorse: MattStafford: And MMT is bullshiat. If you would like me to explain, I gladly will.

I'm all ears on this one, this outta be rich


Modern Monetary Theory is bullcrap because you have to RonPaul the RonPaul instead of RonPauling the direct effects of RonPaul on the national RonPaul. When RonPaul is applied to the index of RonPauled RonPaul adjusted for RonPaul, the flaw is apparent. Dumbass.
 
2013-03-20 03:09:20 PM

MattStafford: DarwiOdrade: Are you saying the ditch-digger-turned-shoemaker's-employee no longer needs shoes? How does the demand for shoes disappear because one ditch-digger changes jobs?

You are suggesting that the shoemaker is going to employ the ditch digger, when the only consumer for those very same shoes is his employee?

I am going to hire you to build a car, and then I'm going to sell you that car? What do I get out of the deal?


The same thing car manufacturers get from selling to their employees now - greater market share among other things that aren't addressed by your oversimplified analogy.
 
2013-03-20 03:09:37 PM

skullkrusher: nothing you said here has anything to do with your apparent need to misunderstand the stimulative effects of deficit spending


Help me understand the stimulative effects of deficit spending.  Please give me a step by step scenario of how a government jobs program or government funded consumption increase will create a permanently stronger economy.

As far as I can surmise, unless those jobs/spending are actually productive, any gains made by those stimulative efforts are lost when those efforts are ended and taxes are raised to pay for those efforts.
 
2013-03-20 03:10:11 PM

James F. Campbell: TheMysticS

If one of the brighter mods is working, your post will probably disappear. See, it's OK for the right-wingers to troll us, but pointing out the hypocrisy is "trolling" him.


Shhh...

I might even get a time out. But this is not the one. So, who knows?
Brighter?
Nah, really just less stuck up. Or afraid the illusion will shatter.
 
2013-03-20 03:10:29 PM

skullkrusher: I have a feeling I know why.


Aw is someone upset that I am pointing out the trolling you and others do. I've played his game for months, including the coconut thread I linked too. I cited Federal Reserve documents and numerous economists and all he does is change the rules. Not playing anymore, just going to ridicule you guys. Go Joe!
 
2013-03-20 03:10:40 PM

MyKingdomForYourHorse: MattStafford: And MMT is bullshiat. If you would like me to explain, I gladly will.

I'm all ears on this one, this outta be rich


Well, now you've done it. I hope you like talking about bridges, fish, and coconuts, becasue you've unleashed the power of the DERP, here.

This is why we can't have nice things
 
2013-03-20 03:11:47 PM

DarwiOdrade: MattStafford: DarwiOdrade: Are you saying the ditch-digger-turned-shoemaker's-employee no longer needs shoes? How does the demand for shoes disappear because one ditch-digger changes jobs?

You are suggesting that the shoemaker is going to employ the ditch digger, when the only consumer for those very same shoes is his employee?

I am going to hire you to build a car, and then I'm going to sell you that car? What do I get out of the deal?

The same thing car manufacturers get from selling to their employees now - greater market share among other things that aren't addressed by your oversimplified analogy.


No, you see, there is only one car maker with one employee and they make only one car because there is no one else in this functioning 2 person economy and that is just like how things are in America today.

Now don't you look silly.

/coconuts
 
2013-03-20 03:13:04 PM

NateGrey: skullkrusher: I have a feeling I know why.

Aw is someone upset that I am pointing out the trolling you and others do. I've played his game for months, including the coconut thread I linked too. I cited Federal Reserve documents and numerous economists and all he does is change the rules. Not playing anymore, just going to ridicule you guys. Go Joe!


You know how I know you didn't read the thread? Not sure what you think constitutes trolling in here on my part.
 
2013-03-20 03:13:25 PM

Ctrl-Alt-Del: Well, now you've done it. I hope you like talking about bridges, fish, and coconuts, becasue you've unleashed the power of the DERP, here.

This is why we can't have nice things


I stared into the abyss and the abyss stared back

Snarcoleptic_Hoosier: Modern Monetary Theory is bullcrap because you have to RonPaul the RonPaul instead of RonPauling the direct effects of RonPaul on the national RonPaul. When RonPaul is applied to the index of RonPauled RonPaul adjusted for RonPaul, the flaw is apparent. Dumbass.


This is almost....almost as good as the 50 shades paragraph generator.
 
2013-03-20 03:13:53 PM

MattStafford: skullkrusher: nothing you said here has anything to do with your apparent need to misunderstand the stimulative effects of deficit spending

Help me understand the stimulative effects of deficit spending.  Please give me a step by step scenario of how a government jobs program or government funded consumption increase will create a permanently stronger economy.

As far as I can surmise, unless those jobs/spending are actually productive, any gains made by those stimulative efforts are lost when those efforts are ended and taxes are raised to pay for those efforts.


already have. Now I'm gonna tap out.

*tap*
 
2013-03-20 03:16:21 PM

MattStafford: Help me understand the stimulative effects of deficit spending


I guess you missed that day when you were getting your degree in economics, huh?
 
2013-03-20 03:16:42 PM

MyKingdomForYourHorse: I'm all ears on this one, this outta be rich


MMT states that proper government action will be to spend money to ensure a low unemployment, and then increase taxes if inflation ever became a problem.  The government is the sole issuer of currency, so borrowing never need enter the equation.

So suppose you split the economy into two groups, me and everyone else.  Also, suppose there is a large unemployed population and several factories that are ready to produce goods.  MMT states that printing money, giving that money to me, and having me hire those unemployed people to run the factories and produce goods for me would be a smart thing to do.  So we do that.  Naturally, inflation will occur.  The proper MMT response would be to raise taxes to lower inflation.  The only people to raise taxes on are the people who actually produced goods.  So not only did they have to work to produce the goods for me, they also had to pay taxes.

And you can change the split into any two groups you would like - the elderly and the non elderly.  Unemployed people and employed people. Blondes and Brunettes.  Whoever gets the money first benefits, and the people who get the money second lose out.

MMT works from an accounting standpoint, I won't disagree with that, but as an economic policy?  It is laughable.
 
2013-03-20 03:16:45 PM

skullkrusher: Rent Party: skullkrusher:

It's like gold mining towns - the sprung up and thrived but then when the gold was gone, they died. Those towns relied on the gold mine as the primary employer and source of revenue.

Some of 'em upped and died (OK, a lot of them upped and died) but others successfully transitioned to other forms of economy.  See Telluride Colorado as the textbook example of this.

right - I couldn't think of an example that kept on but that works. If your economy is based on a single employer or source of revenues and that employer or revenue goes away, of course the economy will crumble. Spending a few hundred billion or several trillion to stimulate the economy in the short term is in no way analogous to that.


Nope, not even close to analogous.  It does demonstrate that investment needs to happen to provide long term economic growth though.  Telluride's investment was mostly private, but the economy wouldn't care whether that ski resort was done via stimulus spending or not.
 
2013-03-20 03:17:22 PM
I really don't have any idea what the fark I just said. I meant one thing- clearly something else sorta came out.

I'm going fishing for trolls off the coconut bridge- anyone else wanna come?

/to the dark stinky basement where the army of potato farkslaves are...
//booga BOOGA
 
2013-03-20 03:17:49 PM

MyKingdomForYourHorse: Of course it changes the economic effect. You are being willfully blind of how money circulates in an economy and instead seem to think that once it gets spent on Grandma or GI Joe, that it magically vanishes into thin air and has zero effect on demand within Grandma and Joe's microecon bubble.


How does spending it on a military base or a retirement home change the overall impact?  The same amount of money enters the economy, it just enters through different means.  Different people benefit.
 
2013-03-20 03:18:36 PM

DarwiOdrade: The same thing car manufacturers get from selling to their employees now - greater market share among other things that aren't addressed by your oversimplified analogy.


I assure you, if the entirety of car manufacturers demand came from their employees, they wouldn't exist.
 
2013-03-20 03:18:53 PM

MattStafford: skullkrusher: nothing you said here has anything to do with your apparent need to misunderstand the stimulative effects of deficit spending

Help me understand the stimulative effects of deficit spending.  Please give me a step by step scenario of how a government jobs program or government funded consumption increase will create a permanently stronger economy.

As far as I can surmise, unless those jobs/spending are actually productive, any gains made by those stimulative efforts are lost when those efforts are ended and taxes are raised to pay for those efforts.


Link:

Link:

Link:
 
2013-03-20 03:19:48 PM

theknuckler_33: No, you see, there is only one car maker with one employee and they make only one car because there is no one else in this functioning 2 person economy and that is just like how things are in America today.

Now don't you look silly.


The argument was this:  Government hires ditch digger.  Ditch digger hires shoemaker.  Shoemaker hires ditch digger and the economy is fixed.  It is a joke.
 
2013-03-20 03:19:58 PM

MattStafford: skullkrusher: nothing you said here has anything to do with your apparent need to misunderstand the stimulative effects of deficit spending

Help me understand the stimulative effects of deficit spending.  Please give me a step by step scenario of how a government jobs program or government funded consumption increase will create a permanently stronger economy.


See that recession right around 1938?  Guess what happened right there.

4.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-03-20 03:20:21 PM

NateGrey: skullkrusher: I have a feeling I know why.

Aw is someone upset that I am pointing out the trolling you and others do. I've played his game for months, including the coconut thread I linked too. I cited Federal Reserve documents and numerous economists and all he does is change the rules. Not playing anymore, just going to ridicule you guys. Go Joe!


I agree completely. Sometimes, it's better to mock than to argue. More power to those who don't use the ignore function as liberally as I do.
 
2013-03-20 03:21:04 PM

MattStafford: How does spending it on a military base or a retirement home change the overall impact? The same amount of money enters the economy, it just enters through different means. Different people benefit.


They also have different needs, spend it on different things so the money gets circulated in different ways.

MattStafford: MMT works from an accounting standpoint, I won't disagree with that, but as an economic policy? It is laughable.


You obviously did not read the link I gave it as you have a very poor understanding of MMT

Ctrl-Alt-Del: I guess you missed that day when you were getting your degree in economics, huh?


...wait...this guy says he is in school for economics?

www.wearysloth.com

The hell you say
 
2013-03-20 03:21:37 PM

MattStafford: MyKingdomForYourHorse: I'm all ears on this one, this outta be rich

MMT states that proper government action will be to spend money to ensure a low unemployment, and then increase taxes if inflation ever became a problem.  The government is the sole issuer of currency, so borrowing never need enter the equation.

So suppose you split the economy into two groups, me and everyone else.  Also, suppose there is a large unemployed population and several factories that are ready to produce goods.  MMT states that printing money, giving that money to me, and having me hire those unemployed people to run the factories and produce goods for me would be a smart thing to do.  So we do that.  Naturally, inflation will occur.  The proper MMT response would be to raise taxes to lower inflation.  The only people to raise taxes on are the people who actually produced goods.  So not only did they have to work to produce the goods for me, they also had to pay taxes.

And you can change the split into any two groups you would like - the elderly and the non elderly.  Unemployed people and employed people. Blondes and Brunettes.  Whoever gets the money first benefits, and the people who get the money second lose out.

MMT works from an accounting standpoint, I won't disagree with that, but as an economic policy?  It is laughable.


Wow. I mean, truly - wow.
 
2013-03-20 03:21:51 PM

skullkrusher: already have. Now I'm gonna tap out.

*tap*


Go for it man, but you didn't explain anything.  All you've said so far is that government spending on useless programs (such as ditch digging) can magically create growth that won't disappear once the ditch digging program ends and taxes are raised to pay for the program.  I have seen no evidence as how this occurs, or seen any reasonable attempt at an explanation.
 
2013-03-20 03:22:19 PM

MattStafford: DarwiOdrade: The same thing car manufacturers get from selling to their employees now - greater market share among other things that aren't addressed by your oversimplified analogy.

I assure you, if the entirety of car manufacturers demand came from their employees, they wouldn't exist.


I assure you, this is part of what makes your analogy fail. Monopsony and monopoly exists but you can't build macroeconomic theories on them.
 
2013-03-20 03:22:32 PM

MattStafford: theknuckler_33: No, you see, there is only one car maker with one employee and they make only one car because there is no one else in this functioning 2 person economy and that is just like how things are in America today.

Now don't you look silly.

The argument was this:  Government hires ditch digger.  Ditch digger hires shoemaker.  Shoemaker hires ditch digger and the economy is fixed.  It is a joke.


No the argument was that government hiring ditch diggers creates demand. Unemployed people get jobs to meet that demand. You admitted this fact. Those people who got jobs to meet the demand of the ditch diggers also create demand that new jobs will be needed to fill. The ditch diggers can take those jobs.

Why do you think government hired ditch diggers create demand but the people that get jobs to meet that demand do not also create demand (and additional jobs)?
 
2013-03-20 03:23:11 PM

Rent Party: See that recession right around 1938? Guess what happened right there.


Snow White and the Seven Dwarves was released in cinemas. I agree with you, Disney has been horrible for the economy.
 
2013-03-20 03:24:20 PM

theknuckler_33: MattStafford: skullkrusher: nothing you said here has anything to do with your apparent need to misunderstand the stimulative effects of deficit spending

Help me understand the stimulative effects of deficit spending.  Please give me a step by step scenario of how a government jobs program or government funded consumption increase will create a permanently stronger economy.

As far as I can surmise, unless those jobs/spending are actually productive, any gains made by those stimulative efforts are lost when those efforts are ended and taxes are raised to pay for those efforts.

Link:

Link:

Link:


Again, you are ignoring the economic effect of the end of these stimulative efforts and the tax increases that go along with paying for those efforts.

Government borrows 100 dollars and the economy booms.  Government taxes 100 dollar and the economy busts.  This second part you refuse to even address.
 
2013-03-20 03:25:25 PM

MattStafford: Go for it man, but you didn't explain anything.  All you've said so far is that government spending on useless programs (such as ditch digging) can magically create growth that won't disappear once the ditch digging program ends and taxes are raised to pay for the program.  I have seen no evidence as how this occurs, or seen any reasonable attempt at an explanation.


See: New Deal - Roosevelt, Franklin Delano
 
2013-03-20 03:26:16 PM

MattStafford: So suppose you split the economy into two groups, me and everyone else.  Also, suppose there is a large unemployed population and several factories that are ready to produce goods.  MMT states that printing money, giving that money to me, and having me hire those unemployed people to run the factories and produce goods for me would be a smart thing to do.  So we do that.  Naturally, inflation will occur.  The proper MMT response would be to raise taxes to lower inflation.  The only people to raise taxes on are the people who actually produced goods.  So not only did they have to work to produce the goods for me, they also had to pay taxes.


The problem with you logic is that you seem to be thinking the factories are producing goods solely for you. If you have money and employ people to produce goods at the factory those people now have jobs and money of their own. Now you are not the only one capable of buying goods from the factory. The people that you have paid are able to start purchasing those goods. Now that those people are purchasing goods from your factory, the factory has started making a profit. Now that the factory is making a profit, you are also paying taxes. Now that the people working for you have jobs and some of them are buying things from your factory, others realize that they have other things they would like to buy that your factory doesn't produce and so they use the money they've saved and start their own factory producing some other item that wasn't being produced before and employing some people at that place, with workers from both factories now able to purchase from either factory.
 
2013-03-20 03:26:22 PM

Rent Party: See that recession right around 1938? Guess what happened right there.


The government stopped stimulating the economy and it collapsed?  Guess what - that is exactly what I would expect.

Government borrows a bunch of money and hires people to build paths in national parks and do make work jobs.  GDP increases.  Government stops paying for those programs.  GDP decreases, as there is no permanent or self sustaining growth.

I mean, are you really suggesting that if we just doubled down on ditch digging that eventually we would come out of the Great Depression smelling like roses?
 
2013-03-20 03:26:37 PM

MattStafford: DarwiOdrade: The same thing car manufacturers get from selling to their employees now - greater market share among other things that aren't addressed by your oversimplified analogy.

I assure you, if the entirety of car manufacturers demand came from their employees, they wouldn't exist.


And yet they do exist. It's as if there is demand for cars beyond the employees of the car company. Maybe the shoemaker has people besides government employed ditch diggers buying their shoes.
 
2013-03-20 03:26:58 PM

MattStafford: skullkrusher: nothing you said here has anything to do with your apparent need to misunderstand the stimulative effects of deficit spending

Help me understand the stimulative effects of deficit spending.  Please give me a step by step scenario of how a government jobs program or government funded consumption increase will create a permanently stronger economy.

As far as I can surmise, unless those jobs/spending are actually productive, any gains made by those stimulative efforts are lost when those efforts are ended and taxes are raised to pay for those efforts.


Let's try this on for size.

I "stimulate" the economy by putting $1 Trillion into the economy for let's say 1 billion Americans (for round number purposes).  All 1 billion get an equal share, that's $1000 each.

Ok so far?  Good.

Now, we're going to have different levels of expenditure of that money.  The poor will blow through almost all of it, the middle class a good portion of it, the rich very little of it.   For argument's sake, let's 75% of all that money is pumped back into the economy through consumption because we know that there are a lot more poor and middle class than rich people.

Ok so far?  Good.

So, we now have $750 billion more money in the economy.  Here is where some conjecture occurs as to what happens, but it's mainly this:  demand increases for goods.  To meet demand, supply must be increased.  To increase supply, labor demand increases.  Unemployment goes down.  More people are put to work to meet demand through the efforts of their productivity.  The cycle has begun, people are working and earning a paycheck, the economy has been primed.

Ok so far?  Good.  Now, let's see what happens - THE BIG IF.

When you remove that stimulus, people are already back to work, you have increased demand, more money in everyone's pocket, but you have this debt.  What to do?  You want to raise taxes.  Ok, fine.  You raise them slowly. You also cut spending down now that the need for huge social services has abated.  OH.  WHAT'S THAT?  YOU FORGOT THAT PART?  COLOR MY DICK A F*CKING RAINBOW OF SHOCK.

Lesson over.
 
2013-03-20 03:28:13 PM

MattStafford: I mean, are you really suggesting that if we just doubled down on ditch digging that eventually we would come out of the Great Depression smelling like roses?


That's literally exactly what we did. We just dug those ditches in Europe and Japan, and we built really expensive machines to dig them (airplanes and tanks).
 
2013-03-20 03:28:15 PM

MattStafford: theknuckler_33: MattStafford: skullkrusher: nothing you said here has anything to do with your apparent need to misunderstand the stimulative effects of deficit spending

Help me understand the stimulative effects of deficit spending.  Please give me a step by step scenario of how a government jobs program or government funded consumption increase will create a permanently stronger economy.

As far as I can surmise, unless those jobs/spending are actually productive, any gains made by those stimulative efforts are lost when those efforts are ended and taxes are raised to pay for those efforts.

Link:

Link:

Link:

Again, you are ignoring the economic effect of the end of these stimulative efforts and the tax increases that go along with paying for those efforts.

Government borrows 100 dollars and the economy booms.  Government taxes 100 dollar and the economy busts.  This second part you refuse to even address.


More people working = more tax receipts. No need to raise taxes.
 
2013-03-20 03:28:39 PM

Lando Lincoln: See: New Deal - Roosevelt, Franklin Delano


Yeah, the New Deal really fixed the economy.  It had nothing to do with WWII and the destruction of the rest of the world.

When the New Deal was scaled back in the mid 30s, what happened?  Was there self sustaining growth?  Did the economy take off?  No, of course the fark not.  You know why?  Because we spent all of our time and money digging ditches and filling them back in (and the TVA/Hoover Dam, which I agree with).  So once we stopped digging ditches and filling them back in, our economy slumped.

But you're going to suggest that our problem wasn't that we were digging ditches and filling them back up, but that we weren't digging enough ditches and filling them back up.
 
2013-03-20 03:30:33 PM

MyKingdomForYourHorse: ...wait...this guy says he is in school for economics?


Personal anecdotes are now basic economics. I got a degree in economics and it was literally just stories about various businessmen and their life stories. Link
 
2013-03-20 03:30:55 PM

DamnYankees: MattStafford: I mean, are you really suggesting that if we just doubled down on ditch digging that eventually we would come out of the Great Depression smelling like roses?

That's literally exactly what we did. We just dug those ditches in Europe and Japan, and we built really expensive machines to dig them (airplanes and tanks).


I would like to see his counterargument.  The Austrian Derp Fairy just sprinkled magic Supply Side Dust on everything and we came out on top?
 
2013-03-20 03:31:19 PM

MattStafford: Lando Lincoln: See: New Deal - Roosevelt, Franklin Delano

Yeah, the New Deal really fixed the economy.  It had nothing to do with WWII and the destruction of the rest of the world.

When the New Deal was scaled back in the mid 30s, what happened?  Was there self sustaining growth?  Did the economy take off?  No, of course the fark not.  You know why?  Because we spent all of our time and money digging ditches and filling them back in (and the TVA/Hoover Dam, which I agree with).  So once we stopped digging ditches and filling them back in, our economy slumped.

But you're going to suggest that our problem wasn't that we were digging ditches and filling them back up, but that we weren't digging enough ditches and filling them back up.


You know, europe was in ruins, that is correct, so they couldn't compete on production.

You know what else? europe was in ruins, so their consumption PLUMMETED

Funny how people who make your tired ass argument always leave out that second part.
 
2013-03-20 03:31:21 PM

MattStafford: theknuckler_33: MattStafford: skullkrusher: nothing you said here has anything to do with your apparent need to misunderstand the stimulative effects of deficit spending

Help me understand the stimulative effects of deficit spending.  Please give me a step by step scenario of how a government jobs program or government funded consumption increase will create a permanently stronger economy.

As far as I can surmise, unless those jobs/spending are actually productive, any gains made by those stimulative efforts are lost when those efforts are ended and taxes are raised to pay for those efforts.

Link:

Link:

Link:

Again, you are ignoring the economic effect of the end of these stimulative efforts and the tax increases that go along with paying for those efforts.

Government borrows 100 dollars and the economy booms.  Government taxes 100 dollar and the economy busts.  This second part you refuse to even address.


jeez, ok, once more I am going to assume you're being sincere.

Government borrows $100 to pay people to dig ditches (paying them to build infrastructure would be better, but immaterial to the point).
That $100 makes its way through the economy and becomes $999.99 in spending via the FRB multiplier.
$100 in borrowing and initial outlay becomes ~$1000 in spending, got that so far?

Government enacts a 1 time tax to recoup that $100 + interest and pay off the loan 5 years down the road. The $1000 in spending does not disappear. In fact, that $1000 in spending stimulated production to meet the new demand which, in turn, created jobs which indirectly stimulates demand further.

Or the government just keeps borrowing to pay the debt service. Doesn't matter. $100 in deficit spending became $1,000 in economic growth.
 
2013-03-20 03:32:06 PM

Snarcoleptic_Hoosier: Rent Party: See that recession right around 1938? Guess what happened right there.

Snow White and the Seven Dwarves was released in cinemas. I agree with you, Disney has been horrible for the economy.


Were they digging ditches, or making shoes?
 
2013-03-20 03:33:00 PM

MyKingdomForYourHorse: Ctrl-Alt-Del: I guess you missed that day when you were getting your degree in economics, huh?

...wait...this guy says he is in school for economics?

The hell you say


Not in school - successfully graduated from school. With a degree. In economics. And not just any school, but a "Top 50 school in the nation"

Of course, he never specified which nation, so I'm guessing it's Galt's Gulch or Ronpaulistan
 
2013-03-20 03:33:50 PM

MattStafford: Lando Lincoln: See: New Deal - Roosevelt, Franklin Delano

Yeah, the New Deal really fixed the economy.  It had nothing to do with WWII and the destruction of the rest of the world.


You mean the New Deal, which started in 1931 and led to an economy that was back to 1929 levels by 1941, a full year before we involved ourselves in WWII?

Is Obama and his time machine involved in this somehow?
 
2013-03-20 03:34:03 PM

skullkrusher: MattStafford: theknuckler_33: MattStafford: skullkrusher: nothing you said here has anything to do with your apparent need to misunderstand the stimulative effects of deficit spending

Help me understand the stimulative effects of deficit spending.  Please give me a step by step scenario of how a government jobs program or government funded consumption increase will create a permanently stronger economy.

As far as I can surmise, unless those jobs/spending are actually productive, any gains made by those stimulative efforts are lost when those efforts are ended and taxes are raised to pay for those efforts.

Link:

Link:

Link:

Again, you are ignoring the economic effect of the end of these stimulative efforts and the tax increases that go along with paying for those efforts.

Government borrows 100 dollars and the economy booms.  Government taxes 100 dollar and the economy busts.  This second part you refuse to even address.

jeez, ok, once more I am going to assume you're being sincere.

Government borrows $100 to pay people to dig ditches (paying them to build infrastructure would be better, but immaterial to the point).
That $100 makes its way through the economy and becomes $999.99 in spending via the FRB multiplier.
$100 in borrowing and initial outlay becomes ~$1000 in spending, got that so far?

Government enacts a 1 time tax to recoup that $100 + interest and pay off the loan 5 years down the road. The $1000 in spending does not disappear. In fact, that $1000 in spending stimulated production to meet the new demand which, in turn, created jobs which indirectly stimulates demand further.

Or the government just keeps borrowing to pay the debt service. Doesn't matter. $100 in deficit spending became $1,000 in economic growth.


to complete that thought: even without FRB, that $100 is spent and spent again, each time generating economic growth in excess of the original expenditure.
$100 to dig a ditch becomes $100 for work boots which become $100 for laces and leather (kinky) which becomes $100 in cows which becomes $100 in cow feed...
$500 from $100. Magic. (or basic understanding of money multipliers and the velocity of money)
 
2013-03-20 03:34:34 PM

runin800m: The problem with you logic is that you seem to be thinking the factories are producing goods solely for you. If you have money and employ people to produce goods at the factory those people now have jobs and money of their own. Now you are not the only one capable of buying goods from the factory. The people that you have paid are able to start purchasing those goods.


This is the same circular logic that seems to plague so many people on this thread.  You're and your friend are unemployed.  I hire you to build me a car.  You guys aren't going to magically employ each other now that you each have money!  If you produced goods or provided services that other people wanted, you wouldn't be unemployed in the first place!  What is actually going to happen is that you are each going to buy a good from some company somewhere, that company will turn on an extra machine, and you and your friend are still going to be unemployed.

These circular, everyone will hire everyone else, theories only work if that money stays strictly in the hands of the people you want to have employed.  If you have a town of unemployed people, and inject money into that town, it will hang around for a bit and then leave, going off to places where people are actually producing goods that other people want.
 
2013-03-20 03:34:46 PM

Rent Party: You mean the New Deal, which started in 1931 and led to an economy that was back to 1929 levels by 1941, a full year before we involved ourselves in WWII?


Started in 1933, not 1931.
 
2013-03-20 03:34:52 PM

NateGrey: MyKingdomForYourHorse: ...wait...this guy says he is in school for economics?

Personal anecdotes are now basic economics. I got a degree in economics and it was literally just stories about various businessmen and their life stories. Link


Great derping scott
 
2013-03-20 03:36:40 PM

MyKingdomForYourHorse: You obviously did not read the link I gave it as you have a very poor understanding of MMT


Then by all means, enlighten me.

What part did I get wrong?

MMT states that when there is idle productive capacity, the currency issuer should issue currency until that productive capacity is being utilized.  It makes no mention as to how that money should be spent.  Then, if inflation every becomes a problem, the currency issuer should address that problem via taxation.
 
2013-03-20 03:37:57 PM

Ctrl-Alt-Del: Not in school - successfully graduated from school. With a degree. In economics. And not just any school, but a "Top 50 school in the nation"

Of course, he never specified which nation, so I'm guessing it's Galt's Gulch or Ronpaulistan


Ohh this just gets better and better, I think Im going to label him this

"Troll that stayed at a Holiday Inn once"
 
2013-03-20 03:38:32 PM

theknuckler_33: More people working = more tax receipts. No need to raise taxes.


Umm, that doesn't make a lot sense.
 
Displayed 50 of 754 comments

First | « | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report