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  
•       •       •

2706 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 03:38:55 PM  

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

Umm, that doesn't make a lot sense.


hahahaha
 
2013-03-20 03:38:55 PM  
For the sake of brevity and our audience I am going to keep this brief.


MattStafford: What part did I get wrong?


All of it
 
2013-03-20 03:39:35 PM  

DamnYankees: 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.


Fair enough.  I stand corrected.
 
2013-03-20 03:40:52 PM  

theknuckler_33: 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.


That's completely circular bullshiat.  If the money ever left that small circle of previously unemployed people, the entire thing collapses.

Government hires a ditch digger.  Ditch digger hires a barber.  Barber buys a video game from EA.  EA adds some money to an account.  Ditch digger gets fired.  Barber gets fired.  EA eventually (maybe) pays some more in taxes.
 
2013-03-20 03:41:05 PM  

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

Umm, that doesn't make a lot sense.

hahahaha


I really don't get the play here. He's either an obvious troll or weapons grade stupid. If he's a troll he's failing because most of us are just mocking him. If he's really just dumb you think he would have slunk away by now considering every thread devolves into "MattStafford is wrong" and then incessant mocking.

I just don't get it.
 
2013-03-20 03:42:17 PM  

theknuckler_33: 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.


If they farking did, they wouldn't be unemployed in the first place!
 
2013-03-20 03:45:08 PM  

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

Umm, that doesn't make a lot sense.


What is this.. I dont even..?

I had these graphs and links typed out.
 
2013-03-20 03:46:02 PM  

MattStafford: Yeah, the New Deal really fixed the economy.


Yes it did.

It had nothing to do with WWII and the destruction of the rest of the world.

No, not really.

You ARE learning! I'm proud of you.
 
2013-03-20 03:46:24 PM  

CPennypacker: I just don't get it.


s21.postimage.org
 
2013-03-20 03:47:05 PM  

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

Umm, that doesn't make a lot sense.


I'll put it in terms you can understand.

The government of Coconutopia collects 1 coconut in taxes from all employed people on the island. Currently there is only 1 person working, so the entire tax receipts of Coconutopia is 1 coconut.  But then the island of Bananarama wants to buy coconuts, so the coconut farmer on Coconutopia has to hire someone else. Now there are 2 people working and the tax receipts are now 2 coconuts. More people working, more tax receipts at the same tax rate.
 
2013-03-20 03:47:12 PM  

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

Umm, that doesn't make a lot sense.

hahahaha

I really don't get the play here. He's either an obvious troll or weapons grade stupid. If he's a troll he's failing because most of us are just mocking him. If he's really just dumb you think he would have slunk away by now considering every thread devolves into "MattStafford is wrong" and then incessant mocking.

I just don't get it.


It's Wednesday, and we're all bored.
 
2013-03-20 03:47:21 PM  

coeyagi: 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.


So you're going to raise taxes and cut spending and you don't think that there will be any negative impact on the economy?   farking magic is what I think I called it.

If you understand that there is a positive feedback loop when you inject money into an economy, how can you not understand that there is a negative feedback loop when you remove money from an economy?
 
2013-03-20 03:50:41 PM  

skullkrusher: 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.


So the 100 dollars that the government injects into the economy becomes 1000, but when it takes it out, it's only 100 got.  Must be more of that gotdamn Keynesian magic.

Just so you are aware, you are wholeheartedly arguing that it is good economic policy for a government to borrow money and then hire people to dig ditches and fill them back in.  Let that sink in for a farking second.
 
2013-03-20 03:51:46 PM  

MyKingdomForYourHorse: For the sake of brevity and our audience I am going to keep this brief.


MattStafford: What part did I get wrong?

All of it


Either explain it, or fark off.
 
2013-03-20 03:52:43 PM  

MattStafford: So the 100 dollars that the government injects into the economy becomes 1000, but when it takes it out, it's only 100 got. Must be more of that gotdamn Keynesian magic.


Actually yes it can seem like magic because by the time the government gets around to taking that 100 back, inflation has devalued it so that its not quite the same value as the 100 when it injected it. And thus this is how MMT works, a balance act between injecting money into supply side, and taking it out without creating bubbles and runaway conditions.

Ohh...and coconuts
 
2013-03-20 03:53:21 PM  

MattStafford: A: I live outside of a small town. I convince the local central bank to print me up a bunch of currency. I go into the small town and buy a bunch of things. I do not produce anything that anyone in the small town wants.

B: I am a senior citizen. I convince the Federal Reserve to print me up a bunch of currency. I buy a bunch of things from other people in the country. I do not produce anything that anyone in the country wants.

A: I live outside of a small town. I convince the town government to borrow money from citizens of the town and from neighboring towns and give that money to me. I go into the small town and buy a bunch of things. I do not produce anything that anyone in the small town wants, nor do I make money to pay back the government.

B: I am a senior citizen. I convince the government to borrow money from citizens of the US and other governments and give that money to me. I buy a bunch of things from other people in the country. I do not produce anything that anyone in the country wants, nor do I make money to pay back the government.

I fail to see how B can be beneficial to a country, whereas A would be harmful. So please explain the difference?


And again, if anyone is bored, this is still unanswered.
 
2013-03-20 03:53:38 PM  

MattStafford: Either explain it, or fark off.


Coconuts
 
2013-03-20 03:55:09 PM  

MattStafford: MattStafford: A: I live outside of a small town. I convince the local central bank to print me up a bunch of currency. I go into the small town and buy a bunch of things. I do not produce anything that anyone in the small town wants.

B: I am a senior citizen. I convince the Federal Reserve to print me up a bunch of currency. I buy a bunch of things from other people in the country. I do not produce anything that anyone in the country wants.

A: I live outside of a small town. I convince the town government to borrow money from citizens of the town and from neighboring towns and give that money to me. I go into the small town and buy a bunch of things. I do not produce anything that anyone in the small town wants, nor do I make money to pay back the government.

B: I am a senior citizen. I convince the government to borrow money from citizens of the US and other governments and give that money to me. I buy a bunch of things from other people in the country. I do not produce anything that anyone in the country wants, nor do I make money to pay back the government.

I fail to see how B can be beneficial to a country, whereas A would be harmful. So please explain the difference?

And again, if anyone is bored, this is still unanswered.


At this point, do you think anyone was even bored enough to read it?
 
2013-03-20 03:55:37 PM  

MattStafford: 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.


That, and FDR coming to the realization sometime around 1938-39-40 that shiatting all over business might have been great populist rhetoric but it was no way to run a nation, especially with a war likely.
 
2013-03-20 03:55:52 PM  

theknuckler_33: The government of Coconutopia collects 1 coconut in taxes from all employed people on the island. Currently there is only 1 person working, so the entire tax receipts of Coconutopia is 1 coconut. But then the island of Bananarama wants to buy coconuts, s


But wait. Why would a Coconutopian coconut farmer sell coconuts? They're MONEY? He's literally growing money! I mean, what would the Bananaramans pay with? Bananas? But then he wouldn't be able to pay his coconut taxes. Or would they pay for his coconuts with coconuts? If so ho many coconuts would they give him for each coconut he grew?

And how does he ship all those coconuts to Bananastan anyway? It's not like there's a bridge between those islands

Economics is just so very confusing
 
2013-03-20 03:56:08 PM  

MattStafford: That's completely circular bullshiat.  If the money ever left that small circle of previously unemployed people, the entire thing collapses.


Yeah, that's true. However, YOU are the one who is making it about this small circle of previously unemployed people.

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.


Why would anyone be talking about money leaving that small circle of unemployed people when you are dealing with an hypothetical where you have already stated that the entire economy is made up of just you and the group of unemployed people.
 
2013-03-20 03:57:55 PM  

Ctrl-Alt-Del: Economics is just so very confusing


All this talk though is making me hungry
 
2013-03-20 03:59:46 PM  

MattStafford: skullkrusher: 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.

So the 100 dollars that the government injects into the economy becomes 1000, but when it takes it out, it's only 100 got.  Must be more of that gotdamn Keynesian magic.

Just so you are aware, you are wholeheartedly arguing that it is good economic policy for a government to borrow money and then hire people to dig ditches and fill them back in.  Let that sink in for a farking second.


no, taking it out would have the same impact... in the future when the economy can better handle it.

No, ditching digging is a bad policy. Paying people to build a bridge to stimulate the economy in a recession can reduce the length of the recession and get the economy rolling again and therefore could be good policy.

I lend you $100 to start your business. I demand that $100 back 5 minutes later. Poof, no business.
I lend you $100 to start your business. You invest that $100 and turn it into $1000 over 5 years. In the 6th year I take my money back. Do you see the difference in impact?
Do you understand that while I might be detracting from you turning that $100 into another $1000 over the course of an additional 5 years, you now have $900 you didn't have before to do the same with?
 
2013-03-20 04:01:22 PM  

runin800m: Why would anyone be talking about money leaving that small circle of unemployed people when you are dealing with an hypothetical where you have already stated that the entire economy is made up of just you and the group of unemployed people.


I'm fairly certain I said that there is a large unemployed population, insinuating that the is also an employed population.  Since there is an employed population, presumably they produce goods that people want.
 
2013-03-20 04:02:40 PM  

Ctrl-Alt-Del: theknuckler_33: The government of Coconutopia collects 1 coconut in taxes from all employed people on the island. Currently there is only 1 person working, so the entire tax receipts of Coconutopia is 1 coconut. But then the island of Bananarama wants to buy coconuts, s

But wait. Why would a Coconutopian coconut farmer sell coconuts? They're MONEY? He's literally growing money! I mean, what would the Bananaramans pay with? Bananas? But then he wouldn't be able to pay his coconut taxes. Or would they pay for his coconuts with coconuts? If so ho many coconuts would they give him for each coconut he grew?

And how does he ship all those coconuts to Bananastan anyway? It's not like there's a bridge between those islands

Economics is just so very confusing


Well, I left out the part about human trafficking and child porn to keep things simple.
 
2013-03-20 04:04:25 PM  

skullkrusher: I lend you $100 to start your business. You invest that $100 and turn it into $1000 over 5 years. In the 6th year I take my money back. Do you see the difference in impact?


Yeah, that might work if I was actually farking investing it.

You lend me 100 bucks.  I hire some people to dig ditches, and claim I need more money.  You lend me another 100.  I hire more ditch diggers.  Repeat for a while.  You ask for the money back.  Hmmmm.

In all fairness, however, I know the people that the ditch diggers bought goods from, and I can take their money if I want to pay you back.  Those people aren't going to be very happy about it, however.
 
2013-03-20 04:05:51 PM  

skullkrusher: jtrockville: MattStafford: People still think borrowing money for Social Security and Medicare is a good idea?  Jesus, how dense are you guys?

Please explain to me how keeping millions of people, who by definition do not produce things or provide services, alive financed via a massive amount of debt is somehow going to make our country stronger?  Who cares if we provide massive amounts of jobs to doctor's providing them services?  Those jobs disappear once we can no longer borrow money to fund the scheme!

You realize that Social Security has a surplus, to the tune of something like $2-3 trillion, right? We borrow nothing (nada, zilch, zip) to fund it.

Proceed with the derp about Medicare.

intragovernmental debt though so while the SSTF might have $2.7T in funds, most of that is in the form of IOUs from the Federal government


IOUs, backed by the full faith and credit of the US Government, are better than cash under the mattress. In otherwords, Social Security is quite sustainable, for at least a few more decades.
 
2013-03-20 04:06:00 PM  

MattStafford: Those people aren't going to be very happy about it, however.


Tough shiat, that's how governments/taxes/currency works.

/coconuts
 
2013-03-20 04:09:25 PM  

MattStafford: I'm fairly certain I said that there is a large unemployed population, insinuating that the is also an employed population.  Since there is an employed population, presumably they produce goods that people want.


OK, so then the people who were unemployed but are now employed by your factory are able to use their salaries to buy from your factory or others that already exist, boosting demand across the board. Perhaps due to this increased demand they, the other existing factories, have to hire more workers to keep up, further stimulating demand. The newly employed are continuing to buy from both your new factory and the existing ones. Even if you stop purchasing, which would definitely hurt the economy, it's certainly not impossible that, between the increased work force at the other factories and the people who have been working at yours and shopping there, the factory you created would still continue to be able to operate at a lower level of production. The economy would contract from what it was when it was at the peak of you buying things, but not necessarily all the way back to what it was before you started.
 
2013-03-20 04:09:58 PM  

jtrockville: skullkrusher: jtrockville: MattStafford: People still think borrowing money for Social Security and Medicare is a good idea?  Jesus, how dense are you guys?

Please explain to me how keeping millions of people, who by definition do not produce things or provide services, alive financed via a massive amount of debt is somehow going to make our country stronger?  Who cares if we provide massive amounts of jobs to doctor's providing them services?  Those jobs disappear once we can no longer borrow money to fund the scheme!

You realize that Social Security has a surplus, to the tune of something like $2-3 trillion, right? We borrow nothing (nada, zilch, zip) to fund it.

Proceed with the derp about Medicare.

intragovernmental debt though so while the SSTF might have $2.7T in funds, most of that is in the form of IOUs from the Federal government

IOUs, backed by the full faith and credit of the US Government, are better than cash under the mattress. In otherwords, Social Security is quite sustainable, for at least a few more decades.


for eternity by that logic
 
2013-03-20 04:10:35 PM  

MattStafford: skullkrusher: I lend you $100 to start your business. You invest that $100 and turn it into $1000 over 5 years. In the 6th year I take my money back. Do you see the difference in impact?

Yeah, that might work if I was actually farking investing it.

You lend me 100 bucks.  I hire some people to dig ditches, and claim I need more money.  You lend me another 100.  I hire more ditch diggers.  Repeat for a while.  You ask for the money back.  Hmmmm.

In all fairness, however, I know the people that the ditch diggers bought goods from, and I can take their money if I want to pay you back.  Those people aren't going to be very happy about it, however.


good Lord... nevermind
 
2013-03-20 04:11:44 PM  

MattStafford: I hire some people to dig ditches, and claim I need more money.


Is anyone actually arguing that money should be spent to dig ditches just because? Why do you assume that whatever the money is spent on is of absolutely no value?
 
2013-03-20 04:17:08 PM  

runin800m: MattStafford: I hire some people to dig ditches, and claim I need more money.

Is anyone actually arguing that money should be spent to dig ditches just because? Why do you assume that whatever the money is spent on is of absolutely no value?


Because if you count the value of potatoes in coconuts the answer is clearly zero.
 
2013-03-20 04:19:11 PM  

skullkrusher: good Lord... nevermind


Government borrows money from the SSTF/Foreign Creditors.

Government pays people to dig ditches.

Ditch diggers buy goods and services throughout the economy.

SSTF/Foreign Creditors want money back - what are your options?

Option 1 - default.  Don't pay the SSTF/Foreign Creditors.
Option 2 - printing.  Print the money to pay the SSTF/Foreign Creditors.
Option 3 - austerity.  Lower spending, increase revenue and work to pay off your debts.

You have no other options.  All options are economically painful, and have severe negative feedback loops.
 
2013-03-20 04:21:23 PM  
In coconut land, there is no such thing as issued debt. All debt is done on a handshake with no certain term length and the principal can and will be recalled at any time at the will and pleasure of the lender.
 
2013-03-20 04:22:00 PM  

runin800m: Is anyone actually arguing that money should be spent to dig ditches just because? Why do you assume that whatever the money is spent on is of absolutely no value?


There are people who refuse to believe that the government can spend poorly, and that regardless of what you spend money on, it is beneficial for the economy, simply because the recipients of that money purchase things with it.

And yes, there have been several people in this thread arguing that a government policy of borrowing money to create a ditch digging industry is an economically smart move.  And yes, they repeatedly mock me for pointing out how dumb that is.
 
2013-03-20 04:22:58 PM  

MattStafford: Government borrows money from the SSTF/Foreign Creditors.

Government pays people to dig ditches.

Ditch diggers buy goods and services throughout the economy.

SSTF/Foreign Creditors want money back - what are your options?

Option 1 - default. Don't pay the SSTF/Foreign Creditors.
Option 2 - printing. Print the money to pay the SSTF/Foreign Creditors.
Option 3 - austerity. Lower spending, increase revenue and work to pay off your debts.

You have no other options. All options are economically painful, and have severe negative feedback loops.


No there is one other option

Option 4 - Potato
 
2013-03-20 04:23:58 PM  

skullkrusher: MattStafford: skullkrusher: I lend you $100 to start your business. You invest that $100 and turn it into $1000 over 5 years. In the 6th year I take my money back. Do you see the difference in impact?

Yeah, that might work if I was actually farking investing it.

You lend me 100 bucks.  I hire some people to dig ditches, and claim I need more money.  You lend me another 100.  I hire more ditch diggers.  Repeat for a while.  You ask for the money back.  Hmmmm.

In all fairness, however, I know the people that the ditch diggers bought goods from, and I can take their money if I want to pay you back.  Those people aren't going to be very happy about it, however.

good Lord... nevermind


Why aren't you addressing his issues instead of pushing him off?

I know why.

CPennypacker: In coconut land, there is no such thing as issued debt. All debt is done on a handshake with no certain term length and the principal can and will be recalled at any time at the will and pleasure of the lender.


lol I have a plan, poison the lenders fish.
 
2013-03-20 04:24:48 PM  

MyKingdomForYourHorse: No there is one other option

Option 4 - Potato


Nothing gets by you.
 
2013-03-20 04:29:16 PM  

NateGrey: Why aren't you addressing his issues instead of pushing him off?


because I've addressed it a number of times, directly to him, in this very thread. From now on, when you're about to say something thinking it's cutting and witty you should probably just avoid saying it because it's probably neither.
 
2013-03-20 04:29:44 PM  

MattStafford: MyKingdomForYourHorse: No there is one other option

Option 4 - Potato

Nothing gets by you.


This ain't my first rodeo son ;)
 
2013-03-20 04:31:33 PM  
Well, I must say, I've been thoroughly convinced that the introduction of paper money will cause people that, up until that very point, were unable to produce any goods or provide any services that anyone else was willing to pay for, and find gainful employment and somehow fix the economy forever.
 
2013-03-20 04:32:17 PM  

runin800m: Is anyone actually arguing that money should be spent to dig ditches just because? Why do you assume that whatever the money is spent on is of absolutely no value?


Yeah... what have the Romans ever done for us!
 
2013-03-20 04:35:11 PM  

MattStafford: skullkrusher: good Lord... nevermind

Government borrows money from the SSTF/Foreign Creditors.

Government pays people to dig ditches.

Ditch diggers buy goods and services throughout the economy.

SSTF/Foreign Creditors want money back - what are your options?

Option 1 - default.  Don't pay the SSTF/Foreign Creditors.
Option 2 - printing.  Print the money to pay the SSTF/Foreign Creditors.
Option 3 - austerity.  Lower spending, increase revenue and work to pay off your debts.

You have no other options.  All options are economically painful, and have severe negative feedback loops.


No other options? How about:
Option 4 - War. Start a war in a foreign country and plunder it's natural resources to pay down the debt.

I think we're going with Option 4.

/See: Native Americans, Mexico, Africa, Central America, Iraq, ect.
//Good ol' Option 4
 
2013-03-20 04:38:00 PM  
I'd just like to say that if MattStafford isn't on the Fark payroll, he should be. I didn't expect this thread to go much above 100 comments, but here we are closing in on 500.
 
2013-03-20 04:40:48 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.


That ain't no tappin' out!

This ain't no disco!
 
2013-03-20 04:44:06 PM  

TheMysticS: 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.

That ain't no tappin' out!

This ain't no disco!


yeah I had to sneak under the ropes for one more metal chair swing when the ref wasn't looking. Now I'm out.
 
2013-03-20 04:44:49 PM  

MattStafford: Well, I must say, I've been thoroughly convinced that the introduction of paper money will cause people that, up until that very point, were unable to produce any goods or provide any services that anyone else was willing to pay for, and find gainful employment and somehow fix the economy forever.


Nice strawman you got there.
 
2013-03-20 04:46:56 PM  
Let's just sick the liberal fact checkers on him

[FREEPER-ALERT.JPG]
 
2013-03-20 04:52:00 PM  

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

Umm, that doesn't make a lot sense.


WTF?

I mean seriously, WTF?

You have to be screwing with us farkers.
 
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 »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report