Do you have adblock enabled?
 
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.
Note: forcing pagination mode for this thread because of the high number of comments. (why?)

(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
    More: Obvious, Medicare, fact checking, John Barrasso, average wage  
•       •       •

2718 clicks; posted to Politics » on 20 Mar 2013 at 12:24 PM (4 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest

 
2013-03-20 11:33:49 AM  
Sorry subs. Washington Post is on my no-clicky list. Nice try though.
 
2013-03-20 11:39:55 AM  
imagemacros.files.wordpress.comView Full Size



///Wait until subtard finds out about private health insurance
 
2013-03-20 11:42:23 AM  
We should be expanding the medicare age lower. We should also increase SS benefits. Cuts are not, contrary to what the Very Serious People in Washington and in the media say, necessary.
 
2013-03-20 11:48:10 AM  
Wow, subs, were you able to finish while writing that headline?

Anyways:

Steuerle said that he was not trying to single out Medicare, but was trying to focus on both Social Security and Medicare. "I think we would probably engage in a better reform if we tried to reform both systems at the same time," he said in an e-mail.

But, if Medicare is the one with the problem, why does the other need reform? And why isn't it noted that the ratio has dropped from 7:1 for a 65 year old in 1960 to 3:1 in 2030? And does he realize you don't actually get that money when they pay for your services? Maybe services are too damned expensive. But that's crazy talk. I'm sure the answer is to cut off the poor people.
 
2013-03-20 11:49:22 AM  

Via Infinito: Sorry subs. Washington Post is on my no-clicky list. Nice try though.


"I don't click any link that's not on my 'approve' list because I certainly don't want to see other opinions or understand the mindset of people that I disagree with."

This is the same narrow-mildness as the assholes that only watch Fox News.  Why not read the article on WaPo then find similar content on another site... then, with a little comprehension make your own judgement?
 
2013-03-20 11:49:28 AM  

Car_Ramrod: Steuerle said that he was not trying to single out Medicare, but was trying to focus on both Social Security and Medicare. "I think we would probably engage in a better reform if we tried to reform both systems at the same time," he said in an e-mail.

But, if Medicare is the one with the problem, why does the other need reform?


Because they don't care about reform. They care about the government not providing these services. That's the goal.
 
2013-03-20 11:53:23 AM  
"sick" (sic) = sic.
 
2013-03-20 11:58:28 AM  

netizencain: Via Infinito: Sorry subs. Washington Post is on my no-clicky list. Nice try though.

"I don't click any link that's not on my 'approve' list because I certainly don't want to see other opinions or understand the mindset of people that I disagree with."

This is the same narrow-mildness as the assholes that only watch Fox News.  Why not read the article on WaPo then find similar content on another site... then, with a little comprehension make your own judgement?


Obviously you don't understand how ad revenue works.
 
2013-03-20 11:59:37 AM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: We should be expanding the medicare age lower. We should also increase SS benefits. Cuts are not, contrary to what the Very Serious People in Washington and in the media say, necessary.


You should eliminate the age requirements.
 
2013-03-20 12:01:36 PM  

mrshowrules: You should eliminate the age requirements.


Medicare for all would be fine by me.
 
2013-03-20 12:03:56 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: mrshowrules: You should eliminate the age requirements.

Medicare for all would be fine by me.


We should.

s3.amazonaws.comView Full Size
 
2013-03-20 12:07:16 PM  
Obamacare includes reforms of Medicare that are already working to reduce spending per beneficiary: http://aspe.hhs.gov/health/reports/2013/medicarespendinggrowth/ib.cfm   The Teahadists have limited time to get the Derp in before the savings become obvious even to the willfully ignorant.

Who am I kidding? Facts don't matter to the Fox crowd
 
2013-03-20 12:22:22 PM  
So yeah, we should totally abandon Medicare and let old people die. Well...old people that can't afford to pay for their treatments die. We are a Christian Nation, after all. Everybody knows how much Jesus hated sick people.
 
2013-03-20 12:26:12 PM  

Lando Lincoln: So yeah, we should totally abandon Medicare and let old people die.


dreamstime.comView Full Size


"I like the cut of your jib, good sir!  Entitlements are destroying America!!"
 
2013-03-20 12:27:25 PM  
isn't the point of Medicare to give people more than they pay for?
 
2013-03-20 12:28:03 PM  

netizencain: Via Infinito: Sorry subs. Washington Post is on my no-clicky list. Nice try though.

"I don't click any link that's not on my 'approve' list because I certainly don't want to see other opinions or understand the mindset of people that I disagree with."

This is the same narrow-mildness as the assholes that only watch Fox News.  Why not read the article on WaPo then find similar content on another site... then, with a little comprehension make your own judgement?


Ever heard of the boy who cried wolf?  Well, that's WaPo, Fox News, and the whole right-wing derposphere at this point.  If people make a point of not reading their stuff, it's only because they already know that what they're going to read is pure, unadulterated bullshiat.
 
2013-03-20 12:29:22 PM  
I hope rich people understand that we poor do out number them.
 
2013-03-20 12:32:06 PM  

skullkrusher: isn't the point of Medicare to give people more than they pay for?


I thought that was usually how insurance worked, yeah.
 
2013-03-20 12:32:47 PM  
Yeah, that's how insurance works.

When you need it, you pull more out than you ever put in.

You also make it worse when the only people drawing out are the highest risk pool around.

Medicare is a great deal for insurance companies.  They get to pass off the customers that cost them the most money to the feds, while reaping the profits of carrying only low risk customers that (individually) pay them thousands and thousands of dollars every year while only going to the doctor once, if at all during that year.
 
2013-03-20 12:33:40 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: skullkrusher: isn't the point of Medicare to give people more than they pay for?

I thought that was usually how insurance worked, yeah.


If that's how insurance worked, we wouldn't have any insurance companies.
Though I think I was thinking of Medicaid when I wrote the OP.
 
2013-03-20 12:33:41 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: skullkrusher: isn't the point of Medicare to give people more than they pay for?

I thought that was usually how insurance worked, yeah.


The concept of shared risk pooling is too difficult for Cletus to understand, so let's end Medicare.
 
2013-03-20 12:34:23 PM  
If we were getting out a dollar for every dollar we put in, why would we need insurance in the first place? Couldn't we just pay for the medical care out of pocket?
 
2013-03-20 12:35:05 PM  

Via Infinito: Sorry subs. Washington Post is on my no-clicky list. Nice try though.


The Washington Post? Really?

Is it because they represent the liberal lamestream media or because they once wrote something that challenged your liberal beliefs? This is interesting.
 
2013-03-20 12:35:36 PM  

Dr. Whoof: cameroncrazy1984: skullkrusher: isn't the point of Medicare to give people more than they pay for?

I thought that was usually how insurance worked, yeah.

The concept of shared risk pooling is too difficult for Cletus to understand, so let's end Medicare.


if the average person is getting $3 back for every $1 put in, that's not very effective risk pooling.
 
2013-03-20 12:35:43 PM  
You really should go lie down, Subby.
 
2013-03-20 12:36:08 PM  
In college I noticed that out of all the people majoring in the sciences, the pre-med majors were the greedy f*cks.
 
2013-03-20 12:36:30 PM  

Via Infinito: Sorry subs. Washington Post is on my no-clicky list. Nice try though.


WP? Sure you aren't confusing it with the Washington Times? WT is a pile of poop. WP isn't bad, relatively speaking.
 
2013-03-20 12:38:15 PM  
If we only had a system, we'll call it "single-payer" that would solve this crisis!
 
2013-03-20 12:38:22 PM  

Via Infinito: Sorry subs. Washington Post is on my no-clicky list. Nice try though.


That's about the equivalent of putting the NYT on your no fly list...
 
2013-03-20 12:38:59 PM  

Dr. Whoof: cameroncrazy1984: skullkrusher: isn't the point of Medicare to give people more than they pay for?

I thought that was usually how insurance worked, yeah.

The concept of shared risk pooling is too difficult for Cletus to understand, so let's end Medicare.


Huh? I don't understand why you said that.
 
2013-03-20 12:39:02 PM  

fsbilly: Via Infinito: Sorry subs. Washington Post is on my no-clicky list. Nice try though.

That's about the equivalent of putting the NYT on your no fly list...


That said, blogs ≠ news
 
2013-03-20 12:39:33 PM  
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!
 
2013-03-20 12:39:34 PM  

skullkrusher: Via Infinito: Sorry subs. Washington Post is on my no-clicky list. Nice try though.

WP? Sure you aren't confusing it with the Washington Times? WT is a pile of poop. WP isn't bad, relatively speaking.


Two words: Jennifer Rubin
 
2013-03-20 12:39:40 PM  
If this headline was a person, it would corner you in a bar and rant about how the judge gave all of its money to its ex-wife.
 
2013-03-20 12:39:49 PM  

fsbilly: That said, blogs ≠ news


Neither is Fark.
 
2013-03-20 12:39:59 PM  
Is that $3 in needed services or $3 in billable procedures?

Lots of what doctors do is pad the bill. The health care system would be better off if more doctors took a salary and provided the right level of service rather than trying to bill for as much as possible.
 
2013-03-20 12:40:36 PM  

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!


And here we go
 
2013-03-20 12:40:51 PM  

MattStafford: 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?


Your right. We should ritually murder every person once they hit the age of 65. That's the way to go.
 
2013-03-20 12:41:15 PM  
So wait, Medicare isn't holding an individual stash of money I paid in?

Imagine if private business functioned that way!

When I put money in the bank, I know that bank holds every dime of it in the back room for me until I want to withdraw.
 
2013-03-20 12:41:25 PM  

MattStafford: 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?


Because old people buy lots of things and that helps the economy. I don't understand why this has to be explained to you over and over again.
 
2013-03-20 12:41:31 PM  

skullkrusher: Dr. Whoof: cameroncrazy1984: skullkrusher: isn't the point of Medicare to give people more than they pay for?

I thought that was usually how insurance worked, yeah.

The concept of shared risk pooling is too difficult for Cletus to understand, so let's end Medicare.

if the average person is getting $3 back for every $1 put in, that's not very effective risk pooling.


Medicare was never about effective risk pooling for the government, it was about helping people the insurance companies refuse to cover because they are too high risk to cover profitably.
 
2013-03-20 12:41:44 PM  
i47.tinypic.comView Full Size
 
2013-03-20 12:42:12 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: MattStafford: 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?

Because old people buy lots of things and that helps the economy. I don't understand why this has to be explained to you over and over again.


To be fair, that's not the reason. If we killed all old people and gave their money to poor people, the substitution effect would equalize consumption. Doing so would simply require us to murder old people.
 
2013-03-20 12:42:13 PM  

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 are the dense one who does not understand even the most basic concepts of economics.

When are you going to admit you lied when you claimed to have earned a degree in economics?
 
2013-03-20 12:42:22 PM  

DamnYankees: MattStafford: 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?

Your right. We should ritually murder every person once they hit the age of 65. That's the way to go.

mybaycity.comView Full Size
 
2013-03-20 12:42:33 PM  
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?

encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.comView Full Size


Nice try, trollmitter.
 
2013-03-20 12:42:41 PM  
If you don't get more than you put in, what's the point in being covered?  May as well take your $1 and stick it in a savings account.
 
2013-03-20 12:43:51 PM  

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?



You're right. We should let all those people that spent the last 40 years putting into Medicare die in the streets. I liked your idea better the first time I read about it, when it was called "Animal Farm."
 
2013-03-20 12:43:51 PM  

max_pooper: 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 are the dense one who does not understand even the most basic concepts of economics.

When are you going to admit you lied when you claimed to have earned a degree in economics?


Come now, he could have.  I doubt it, but he could have.

Even the guy that graduated last in his class at med school is still called "doctor".
 
2013-03-20 12:44:11 PM  

DamnYankees: MattStafford: 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?

Your right. We should ritually murder every person once they hit the age of 65. That's the way to go.


I hear there are a lot of ice floes to put people on.
 
2013-03-20 12:44:24 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: skullkrusher: Via Infinito: Sorry subs. Washington Post is on my no-clicky list. Nice try though.

WP? Sure you aren't confusing it with the Washington Times? WT is a pile of poop. WP isn't bad, relatively speaking.

Two words: Jennifer Rubin


Would also have accepted:

George Will

Charles Krauthammer
 
2013-03-20 12:44:50 PM  

DamnYankees: cameroncrazy1984: MattStafford: 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?

Because old people buy lots of things and that helps the economy. I don't understand why this has to be explained to you over and over again.

To be fair, that's not the reason. If we killed all old people and gave their money to poor people, the substitution effect would equalize consumption. Doing so would simply require us to murder old people.


Good point, old people are still humans and keeping alive your elders is a good thing to do.
 
2013-03-20 12:46:11 PM  

CPennypacker: If we were getting out a dollar for every dollar we put in, why would we need insurance in the first place? Couldn't we just pay for the medical care out of pocket?


Insurance insures that should you exceed that ratio due to a tragedy you are insured assuredly to receive insurance.

So if you never need a quarter million dollars in cancer treatments, consider yourself lucky.
 
2013-03-20 12:47:01 PM  

meat0918: max_pooper: 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 are the dense one who does not understand even the most basic concepts of economics.

When are you going to admit you lied when you claimed to have earned a degree in economics?

Come now, he could have.  I doubt it, but he could have.

Even the guy that graduated last in his class at med school is still called "doctor".



Maybe he got his degree at the same institutions Sarah Palin got hers?
 
2013-03-20 12:47:09 PM  
Ok, but it's not like they paid that money on the same day they got the benefits. Does time vale of money ring a bell? How about compound interest? Inflation?
 
2013-03-20 12:47:37 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Because old people buy lots of things and that helps the economy. I don't understand why this has to be explained to you over and over again.


Buying shiat does not help the economy!  Christ, how difficult is that to understand?

If a bank loaned me two trillion dollars, and I bought and consumed two trillion dollars worth of goods, would that help the economy?
 
2013-03-20 12:48:27 PM  

MattStafford: cameroncrazy1984: Because old people buy lots of things and that helps the economy. I don't understand why this has to be explained to you over and over again.

Buying shiat does not help the economy!  Christ, how difficult is that to understand?

If a bank loaned me two trillion dollars, and I bought and consumed two trillion dollars worth of goods, would that help the economy?


YES
 
2013-03-20 12:49:07 PM  

MattStafford: If a bank loaned me two trillion dollars, and I bought and consumed two trillion dollars worth of goods, would that help the economy?


In the current economy? Yes. A lot.

Look, I understand that you fundamentally disagree with Keynesian economics, but is there some reason that you need to re-start every single thread pretending not to know what Keynesian's think, and re-asking the same questions over and over again?
 
2013-03-20 12:50:05 PM  
Not many explanations as to how borrowing money to fund Social Security and Medicare makes economic sense - definitely a bunch of appeals to morality, however.

I understand and agree that providing for our elders is a good, moral thing.  We cannot, however, sustainably do that via borrowing, and to attempt so is very bad for the economy.

It is possible to have these two thoughts simultaneously, even though that might be difficult for some of you out there.
 
2013-03-20 12:50:05 PM  

DamnYankees: MattStafford: If a bank loaned me two trillion dollars, and I bought and consumed two trillion dollars worth of goods, would that help the economy?

In the current economy? Yes. A lot.

Look, I understand that you fundamentally disagree with Keynesian economics, but is there some reason that you need to re-start every single thread pretending not to know what Keynesian's think, and re-asking the same questions over and over again?


Theory:
 
2013-03-20 12:50:16 PM  

MattStafford: 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?


Free babysitting.
 
2013-03-20 12:50:27 PM  
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?

2030 was fiction. bad fiction.
 
2013-03-20 12:50:49 PM  

MattStafford: Buying shiat does not help the economy! Christ, how difficult is that to understand?

If a bank loaned me two trillion dollars, and I bought and consumed two trillion dollars worth of goods, would that help the economy?


Yes it would.

Christ, how difficult is that to understand?
 
2013-03-20 12:51:01 PM  

Paul Baumer: cameroncrazy1984: skullkrusher: Via Infinito: Sorry subs. Washington Post is on my no-clicky list. Nice try though.

WP? Sure you aren't confusing it with the Washington Times? WT is a pile of poop. WP isn't bad, relatively speaking.

Two words: Jennifer Rubin

Would also have accepted:

George Will

Charles Krauthammer


David Broder

Eugene Robinson

Richard Cohen

And many others. It's almost as though they've intentionally set out to offer a variety of perspectives.
 
2013-03-20 12:51:03 PM  

CPennypacker: DamnYankees: MattStafford: If a bank loaned me two trillion dollars, and I bought and consumed two trillion dollars worth of goods, would that help the economy?

In the current economy? Yes. A lot.

Look, I understand that you fundamentally disagree with Keynesian economics, but is there some reason that you need to re-start every single thread pretending not to know what Keynesian's think, and re-asking the same questions over and over again?

Theory:


Sorry, what I meant was, Theory:

data.whicdn.comView Full Size
 
2013-03-20 12:51:05 PM  

DamnYankees: MattStafford: 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?

Your right. We should ritually murder every person once they hit the age of 65. That's the way to go.


encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.comView Full Size
 
2013-03-20 12:51:12 PM  

CPennypacker: YES


DamnYankees: In the current economy? Yes. A lot.

Look, I understand that you fundamentally disagree with Keynesian economics, but is there some reason that you need to re-start every single thread pretending not to know what Keynesian's think, and re-asking the same questions over and over again?


If I borrowed ten trillion dollars?  What if I only spent it on comic books?

What happens when the bank no longer lends me money, and my consumption drops to zero?
 
2013-03-20 12:51:26 PM  
Amazingly enough, I expect to take more money out of my IRA than I put in, too.

I don't quite get this "economics" stuff, but my understanding is that if I were to question it too much, the magic might go away and I'd only get the exact amount of money I'd saved.  Not goin' there.
 
2013-03-20 12:51:31 PM  

netizencain: Via Infinito: Sorry subs. Washington Post is on my no-clicky list. Nice try though.

"I don't click any link that's not on my 'approve' list because I certainly don't want to see other opinions or understand the mindset of people that I disagree with."

This is the same narrow-mildness as the assholes that only watch Fox News.  Why not read the article on WaPo then find similar content on another site... then, with a little comprehension make your own judgement?


Oh nice. Tell me, do you  hitting yourself on the thumb with a hammer, because one of these times it might feel good?

There's only so much time in the day, and clicking a WaPo or Fox link on the odds there is thoughtful, accurate reporting or analysis is a generally losing proposition.

/Unless you're doing it out of pure self-loathing, like me reading Peggy Noonan's column every week.
 
2013-03-20 12:52:13 PM  

maniacbastard: Yes it would.

Christ, how difficult is that to understand?


You guys are idiots.  Do you not understand the concept of a loan!?  It has to be paid back!
 
2013-03-20 12:52:13 PM  

MattStafford: CPennypacker: YES

DamnYankees: In the current economy? Yes. A lot.

Look, I understand that you fundamentally disagree with Keynesian economics, but is there some reason that you need to re-start every single thread pretending not to know what Keynesian's think, and re-asking the same questions over and over again?

If I borrowed ten trillion dollars?  What if I only spent it on comic books?

What happens when the bank no longer lends me money, and my consumption drops to zero?


Then you run out of coconuts
 
2013-03-20 12:52:34 PM  

maniacbastard: MattStafford: Buying shiat does not help the economy! Christ, how difficult is that to understand?

If a bank loaned me two trillion dollars, and I bought and consumed two trillion dollars worth of goods, would that help the economy?

Yes it would.

Christ, how difficult is that to understand?


He'd buy $2T of used goods from one guy at cost.
 
2013-03-20 12:52:41 PM  
The hybrid health care system we have is nonsensical, and just invites price inflation and abuse by well-connected medical companies.

We can address a lot of the problems with health care in this country by joining the rest of the civilized world and enacting single payer health care.
 
2013-03-20 12:52:50 PM  

CPennypacker: Then you run out of coconuts


Then you result to ad hominems, because your precious theory completely falls apart.
 
2013-03-20 12:53:01 PM  

MattStafford: cameroncrazy1984: Because old people buy lots of things and that helps the economy. I don't understand why this has to be explained to you over and over again.

Buying shiat does not help the economy!  Christ, how difficult is that to understand?

If a bank loaned me two trillion dollars, and I bought and consumed two trillion dollars worth of goods, would that help the economy?


I think we need to help you out with some definitions. Let's start with "dollar", "economy", "bank", "loan", and "two".

/ Kidding. With you I think we need to start with "the".
 
2013-03-20 12:53:18 PM  

MattStafford: CPennypacker: YES

DamnYankees: In the current economy? Yes. A lot.

Look, I understand that you fundamentally disagree with Keynesian economics, but is there some reason that you need to re-start every single thread pretending not to know what Keynesian's think, and re-asking the same questions over and over again?

If I borrowed ten trillion dollars?  What if I only spent it on comic books?

What happens when the bank no longer lends me money, and my consumption drops to zero?


I repeat: I understand that you fundamentally disagree with Keynesian economics, but is there some reason that you need to re-start every single thread pretending not to know what Keynesian's think, and re-asking the same questions over and over again?

We've been through this many times before.
 
2013-03-20 12:53:22 PM  

maniacbastard: CPennypacker: If we were getting out a dollar for every dollar we put in, why would we need insurance in the first place? Couldn't we just pay for the medical care out of pocket?

Insurance insures that should you exceed that ratio due to a tragedy you are insured assuredly to receive insurance.

So if you never need a quarter million dollars in cancer treatments, consider yourself lucky.


Exaclty. I hope I'm a net profit for insurance companies and a subsidy for medicare recipients, I'd prefer paying money that I won't benefit prom than having a disease which cost tons in medical expenses.

DamnYankees: Your right. We should ritually murder every person once they hit the age of 65. That's the way to go.


Don't be ridiculous, clearly we should only murder poor people over 65, rich people who can afford a private doctor and cover all medical expenses clearly earned their extra years.
 
2013-03-20 12:53:24 PM  

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!


Please explain to me why we keep subsidizing wealthy individuals, who by definition do not produce things or provide services?
 
2013-03-20 12:53:29 PM  

MattStafford: We cannot, however, sustainably do that via borrowing, and to attempt so is very bad for the economy.


If the money borrowed is used to create markets that did not exist before then it is very good for the economy.

Let's turn the discussion away from healthcare, and use an easier to understand federal investment, the internet.

Did the governments borrowing of money to fund the internet result in something that is good for the economy?
 
2013-03-20 12:53:38 PM  

MattStafford: CPennypacker: Then you run out of coconuts

Then you result to ad hominems, because your precious theory completely falls apart.


How many times do we have to go through this? That's not an ad hominem. I'm mocking you.
 
2013-03-20 12:53:50 PM  
If I printed ten trillion dollars, and bought ten trillion dollars worth of goods and services, would our economy be better off?
 
2013-03-20 12:54:02 PM  

meat0918: max_pooper: 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 are the dense one who does not understand even the most basic concepts of economics.

When are you going to admit you lied when you claimed to have earned a degree in economics?

Come now, he could have.  I doubt it, but he could have.

Even the guy that graduated last in his class at med school is still called "doctor".


True, but the guy that graduated last in his class at med school actually graduated from med school. MattStafford has provided no proof that he actually earned a degree in economics, while providing plenty of stupidity to support the theory that he lied about his education. He always just ignores the comments when people bring up his claim of earning an economics degree from a top 50 school.

Hey MattStafford, when are you going to admit you lied when you claimed to have earned a degree in economics?
 
2013-03-20 12:54:02 PM  
Wow that is one unbelievably bitter headline.
 
2013-03-20 12:54:26 PM  

MattStafford: maniacbastard: Yes it would.

Christ, how difficult is that to understand?

You guys are idiots.  Do you not understand the concept of a loan!?  It has to be paid back!


So you're saying successful businesses never borrow money.
 
2013-03-20 12:54:29 PM  

DamnYankees: I repeat: I understand that you fundamentally disagree with Keynesian economics, but is there some reason that you need to re-start every single thread pretending not to know what Keynesian's think, and re-asking the same questions over and over again?

We've been through this many times before.


Because until people understand that it is bullshiat, it needs to be restarted.
 
2013-03-20 12:55:08 PM  

FarkedOver: Please explain to me why we keep subsidizing wealthy individuals, who by definition do not produce things or provide services?


We shouldn't!  What makes you think I'm in favor of that?
 
2013-03-20 12:55:16 PM  
Waiting for the scrolling mod post to show up on this thread telling us that we can ignore people
 
2013-03-20 12:56:11 PM  

MattStafford: You guys are idiots. Do you not understand the concept of a loan!? It has to be paid back!


It does??  Thanks for telling me that?  Is there some reason you're pointing that out in this thread?
 
2013-03-20 12:56:26 PM  

MattStafford: DamnYankees: I repeat: I understand that you fundamentally disagree with Keynesian economics, but is there some reason that you need to re-start every single thread pretending not to know what Keynesian's think, and re-asking the same questions over and over again?

We've been through this many times before.

Because until people understand that it is bullshiat, it needs to be restarted.


So you're like a tourist who doesn't speak French, and thinks that in order to order food in Paris you just need to speak English even louder.
 
2013-03-20 12:56:53 PM  

MattStafford: cameroncrazy1984: Because old people buy lots of things and that helps the economy. I don't understand why this has to be explained to you over and over again.

Buying shiat does not help the economy!  Christ, how difficult is that to understand?

If a bank loaned me two trillion dollars, and I bought and consumed two trillion dollars worth of goods, would that help the economy?


Please try to come up with a reasonable example. The one you keep using will never happen and is thus not worth discussing. Can you stay in the real-world, please?
 
2013-03-20 12:56:56 PM  

maniacbastard: If the money borrowed is used to create markets that did not exist before then it is very good for the economy.


You are suggesting that, if I borrowed a trillion dollars from a bank, and then hired millions and millions of people to dig ditches and fill them back, creating the ditch digging market, that our economy would be better off?

maniacbastard: Let's turn the discussion away from healthcare, and use an easier to understand federal investment, the internet.

Did the governments borrowing of money to fund the internet result in something that is good for the economy?


I have said repeatedly that borrowing money for R+D purposes is potentially good for the economy.
 
2013-03-20 12:57:03 PM  

jaytkay: MattStafford: cameroncrazy1984: Because old people buy lots of things and that helps the economy. I don't understand why this has to be explained to you over and over again.

Buying shiat does not help the economy!  Christ, how difficult is that to understand?

If a bank loaned me two trillion dollars, and I bought and consumed two trillion dollars worth of goods, would that help the economy?

I think we need to help you out with some definitions. Let's start with "dollar", "economy", "bank", "loan", and "two".

/ Kidding. With you I think we need to start with "the".


He is constitutionally incapable of understanding anything that doesn't involve monkeys on pogosticks throwing fish at coconuts as a model of the real-world economy.
 
2013-03-20 12:57:06 PM  

MattStafford: FarkedOver: Please explain to me why we keep subsidizing wealthy individuals, who by definition do not produce things or provide services?

We shouldn't!  What makes you think I'm in favor of that?


Well you're not a Keynesian.... I'm pretty sure you're not a Marxist.   Oh you're just an "end the fed and everything will fall into place" kind of person? is that what we have here?  Do you want to go back to the gold standard while we're at it?
 
2013-03-20 12:57:13 PM  

jaytkay: MattStafford: maniacbastard: Yes it would.

Christ, how difficult is that to understand?

You guys are idiots.  Do you not understand the concept of a loan!?  It has to be paid back!

So you're saying successful businesses never borrow money.


Also, that banks never loan money to governments/companies in order to improve the economy because it doesn't work that way.
 
2013-03-20 12:57:18 PM  

MattStafford: If I printed ten trillion dollars, and bought ten trillion dollars worth of goods and services, would our economy be better off?


How many times does this need to be explained to you?


When are you going to admit you lied when you claimed to have earned a degree in economics?
 
2013-03-20 12:57:39 PM  

MattStafford: DamnYankees: I repeat: I understand that you fundamentally disagree with Keynesian economics, but is there some reason that you need to re-start every single thread pretending not to know what Keynesian's think, and re-asking the same questions over and over again?

We've been through this many times before.

Because until people understand that it is bullshiat, it needs to be restarted.


But your assertion it is bullshiat flies in the face of documented reality.
 
2013-03-20 12:58:09 PM  

MattStafford: If I printed ten trillion dollars, and bought ten trillion dollars worth of goods and services, would our economy be better off?


What do you think happens to that $10 trillion? It doesn't just vanish.
 
2013-03-20 12:58:14 PM  

Cletus C.: Paul Baumer: cameroncrazy1984: skullkrusher: Via Infinito: Sorry subs. Washington Post is on my no-clicky list. Nice try though.

WP? Sure you aren't confusing it with the Washington Times? WT is a pile of poop. WP isn't bad, relatively speaking.

Two words: Jennifer Rubin

Would also have accepted:

George Will

Charles Krauthammer

David Broder

Eugene Robinson

Richard Cohen

And many others. It's almost as though they've intentionally set out to offer a variety of perspectives.


errr.... hate to be the bearer of bad tidings, but Broder hasn't really published much since  March 9, 2011.
 
2013-03-20 12:58:24 PM  

FarkedOver: MattStafford: FarkedOver: Please explain to me why we keep subsidizing wealthy individuals, who by definition do not produce things or provide services?

We shouldn't!  What makes you think I'm in favor of that?

Well you're not a Keynesian.... I'm pretty sure you're not a Marxist.   Oh you're just an "end the fed and everything will fall into place" kind of person? is that what we have here?  Do you want to go back to the gold standard while we're at it?


His actual economic ideas are Sillyasstrollism.
 
2013-03-20 12:58:44 PM  
$10 trillion buys a lot of coconuts
 
2013-03-20 12:59:04 PM  
Another thread gone to hell.
 
2013-03-20 12:59:15 PM  
Sick[sic] the liberal media!
 
2013-03-20 12:59:42 PM  

MattStafford: maniacbastard: If the money borrowed is used to create markets that did not exist before then it is very good for the economy.

You are suggesting that, if I borrowed a trillion dollars from a bank, and then hired millions and millions of people to dig ditches and fill them back, creating the ditch digging market, that our economy would be better off?

maniacbastard: Let's turn the discussion away from healthcare, and use an easier to understand federal investment, the internet.

Did the governments borrowing of money to fund the internet result in something that is good for the economy?

I have said repeatedly that borrowing money for R+D purposes is potentially good for the economy.


Back to the digging ditches false equivalency? How many times do you need to be shown that your simplistic analogies do not apply to the real world?

When are you going to admit you lied when you claimed to have earned a degree in economics?
 
2013-03-20 12:59:43 PM  

MattStafford: You guys are idiots. Do you not understand the concept of a loan!? It has to be paid back!


If I use the money to create a new market or enhance an existing one that results in a new tax revenue stream that lasts until the end of time, then it gets paid back times infinity.

How much of the federal highway system was built with revenue streams other than gas taxes?

What is the primary way that most people receive shipments to businesses and the home?

That borrowing resulted in an increase in our economy.

Now borrowing a trillion dollars to attack some nation that never attacked us under false pretensions, well, that is just farking retarded.
 
2013-03-20 12:59:51 PM  

qorkfiend: MattStafford: If I printed ten trillion dollars, and bought ten trillion dollars worth of goods and services, would our economy be better off?

What do you think happens to that $10 trillion? It doesn't just vanish.


By definiition he thinks that tax dollars don't get spent ever. They'e just sucked out of the economy. Seriously.
 
2013-03-20 12:59:53 PM  

meat0918: skullkrusher: Dr. Whoof: cameroncrazy1984: skullkrusher: isn't the point of Medicare to give people more than they pay for?

I thought that was usually how insurance worked, yeah.

The concept of shared risk pooling is too difficult for Cletus to understand, so let's end Medicare.

if the average person is getting $3 back for every $1 put in, that's not very effective risk pooling.

Medicare was never about effective risk pooling for the government, it was about helping people the insurance companies refuse to cover because they are too high risk to cover profitably.


which was my original point.
 
2013-03-20 01:00:02 PM  
cameroncrazy1984: MattStafford: cameroncrazy1984: Because old people buy lots of things and that helps the economy. I don't understand why this has to be explained to you over and over again.
 
Buying shiat does not help the economy!  Christ, how difficult is that to understand?

If a bank loaned me two trillion dollars, and I bought and consumed two trillion dollars worth of goods, would that help the economy?

Please try to come up with a reasonable example. The one you keep using will never happen and is thus not worth discussing. Can you stay in the real-world, please?



Just answer the question!  Would it be good for the economy?  If you replace me with a bunch of seniors, would it be good for the economy then?
 
2013-03-20 01:00:23 PM  
Medicare should be expanded and offered as the Public Option.  Cut 90% of the regulations from Obamacare and presto.  We have competition from government in the insurance industry, and pricing drops to adjust.  But in the expansion of Medicare they might want to pay more than $12 per year for eye exams and eye surgeries to opthalmologists and such or they will continue running from Medicare patients as fast as they can.
 
2013-03-20 01:00:28 PM  
MattStafford, the economic troll..
 
2013-03-20 01:00:31 PM  

A Dark Evil Omen: FarkedOver: MattStafford: FarkedOver: Please explain to me why we keep subsidizing wealthy individuals, who by definition do not produce things or provide services?

We shouldn't!  What makes you think I'm in favor of that?

Well you're not a Keynesian.... I'm pretty sure you're not a Marxist.   Oh you're just an "end the fed and everything will fall into place" kind of person? is that what we have here?  Do you want to go back to the gold standard while we're at it?

His actual economic ideas are Sillyasstrollism.


Ahhh the Ron Paul school of economics. That's good for him... I guess.
 
2013-03-20 01:01:00 PM  

MattStafford: cameroncrazy1984: MattStafford: cameroncrazy1984: Because old people buy lots of things and that helps the economy. I don't understand why this has to be explained to you over and over again.
 
Buying shiat does not help the economy!  Christ, how difficult is that to understand?

If a bank loaned me two trillion dollars, and I bought and consumed two trillion dollars worth of goods, would that help the economy?

Please try to come up with a reasonable example. The one you keep using will never happen and is thus not worth discussing. Can you stay in the real-world, please?


Just answer the question!  Would it be good for the economy?  If you replace me with a bunch of seniors, would it be good for the economy then?


Right now - yes - considering most seniors don't know how to use a computer.

fark off, troll.
 
2013-03-20 01:01:08 PM  

Via Infinito: Sorry subs. Washington Post is on my no-clicky list. Nice try though.


Did you think this was the Moonies one? Cause that would be the Times.
 
2013-03-20 01:01:15 PM  

MattStafford: cameroncrazy1984: MattStafford: cameroncrazy1984: Because old people buy lots of things and that helps the economy. I don't understand why this has to be explained to you over and over again.

Buying shiat does not help the economy!  Christ, how difficult is that to understand?

If a bank loaned me two trillion dollars, and I bought and consumed two trillion dollars worth of goods, would that help the economy?

Please try to come up with a reasonable example. The one you keep using will never happen and is thus not worth discussing. Can you stay in the real-world, please?


Just answer the question!  Would it be good for the economy?  If you replace me with a bunch of seniors, would it be good for the economy then?


Are you seriously asking whether injecting $2 trillion into the economy is a good thing?
 
2013-03-20 01:02:02 PM  

qorkfiend: MattStafford: If I printed ten trillion dollars, and bought ten trillion dollars worth of goods and services, would our economy be better off?

What do you think happens to that $10 trillion? It doesn't just vanish.


So are you agreeing that the economy would be better off?  What if I printed 20 trillion dollars, and hired every single working age person in America to produce goods for me?  Would the economy be better off then?
 
2013-03-20 01:02:04 PM  

MattStafford: cameroncrazy1984: MattStafford: cameroncrazy1984: Because old people buy lots of things and that helps the economy. I don't understand why this has to be explained to you over and over again.
 
Buying shiat does not help the economy!  Christ, how difficult is that to understand?

If a bank loaned me two trillion dollars, and I bought and consumed two trillion dollars worth of goods, would that help the economy?

Please try to come up with a reasonable example. The one you keep using will never happen and is thus not worth discussing. Can you stay in the real-world, please?


Just answer the question!  Would it be good for the economy?  If you replace me with a bunch of seniors, would it be good for the economy then?


Hell. Yes.  Not only would it be good for the economy, but it would be absolutely fantastic for FARK threads.
 
2013-03-20 01:02:24 PM  

MattStafford: Just answer the question!  Would it be good for the economy?  If you replace me with a bunch of seniors, would it be good for the economy then?


Why do you think the two are related?
 
2013-03-20 01:02:30 PM  

CPennypacker: Waiting for the scrolling mod post to show up on this thread telling us that we can ignore people


Yours is the only non-gray entry in a sequence of fifteen+ consecutive posts. People haven't learned yet, it seems.
 
2013-03-20 01:02:34 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: qorkfiend: MattStafford: If I printed ten trillion dollars, and bought ten trillion dollars worth of goods and services, would our economy be better off?

What do you think happens to that $10 trillion? It doesn't just vanish.

By definiition he thinks that tax dollars don't get spent ever. They'e just sucked out of the economy. Seriously.


Yup. He also does not understand the future value of money, supply and demand, and the difference between debt and deficits. These are all very basic concepts of economics that he has little understanding of. It's hard to believe that a top 50 school would award him a degree in economics.
 
2013-03-20 01:02:58 PM  

MattStafford: So are you agreeing that the economy would be better off? What if I printed 20 trillion dollars, and hired every single working age person in America to produce goods for me? Would the economy be better off then?


No, you'd be exploiting your workers in typical capitalist fashion.
 
2013-03-20 01:03:14 PM  

MattStafford: qorkfiend: MattStafford: If I printed ten trillion dollars, and bought ten trillion dollars worth of goods and services, would our economy be better off?

What do you think happens to that $10 trillion? It doesn't just vanish.

So are you agreeing that the economy would be better off?  What if I printed 20 trillion dollars, and hired every single working age person in America to produce goods for me?  Would the economy be better off then?


Psh, heck yeah!  It'd be awesome!
 
2013-03-20 01:03:29 PM  

max_pooper: Hey MattStafford, when are you going to admit you lied when you claimed to have earned a degree in economics?


Maybe he got a GED.
 
2013-03-20 01:03:30 PM  

MattStafford: cameroncrazy1984: Because old people buy lots of things and that helps the economy. I don't understand why this has to be explained to you over and over again.

Buying shiat does not help the economy!  Christ, how difficult is that to understand?

If a bank loaned me two trillion dollars, and I bought and consumed two trillion dollars worth of goods, would that help the economy?


Old people buying things is not a one-time event. It is continuous and if you don't think buying shiat helps the economy, every business in existence would like a word with you.
 
2013-03-20 01:03:33 PM  

MattStafford: I have said repeatedly that borrowing money for R+D purposes is potentially good for the economy.


And building infrastructure,

or creating new markets
 
2013-03-20 01:03:48 PM  
oh fark, look, it's a matt stafford circle jerk thread.

/run away
 
2013-03-20 01:03:57 PM  

A Dark Evil Omen: He is constitutionally incapable of understanding anything that doesn't involve monkeys on pogosticks throwing fish at coconuts as a model of the real-world economy.


Listen, monkeys on pogosticks is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not some ape throwing fish at coconuts .

2.bp.blogspot.comView Full Size
 
2013-03-20 01:04:24 PM  
Medicare faces two issues:

The fraud inherent to a system that spends $ Billions with NO questions asked about whether the goods are delivered or needed.  No oversight whatsoever.  Think about that for a second.

It's also a system in which the couple who earns 12,000 per year in SS payments pays the same premium as the couple with $12 Million in assets, and retirement income of $163,000 per year.

We're so afraid of someone calling us "Socialists" that we refuse to act to fix something that virtually everyone in the nation agrees should be fixed.
 
2013-03-20 01:04:55 PM  
This Stafford fellow cannot be for real.
 
2013-03-20 01:05:21 PM  

MattStafford: qorkfiend: MattStafford: If I printed ten trillion dollars, and bought ten trillion dollars worth of goods and services, would our economy be better off?

What do you think happens to that $10 trillion? It doesn't just vanish.

So are you agreeing that the economy would be better off?  What if I printed 20 trillion dollars, and hired every single working age person in America to produce goods for me?  Would the economy be better off then?


If every single working age person in America was being regularly paid for work it would be spectacular for the economy.
 
2013-03-20 01:05:27 PM  
Punish the poor! The bankers need more!
 
2013-03-20 01:07:01 PM  
We can and will soak the rich eventually. They'll still be rich when all is said and done.
 
2013-03-20 01:07:42 PM  
Alright, look guys - I'll try to make this as simple as possible:

Imagine the recipients of Medicare and Social Security as one collective entity.  They receive a great deal of borrowed money every year that they use to spend on goods and services.  People in this thread are claiming that this is good for the economy.

Suppose instead of that one collective entity, it was just me receiving that money.  If the US government borrowed the same amount of money every year, and just gave it to me, would that still be good for the economy?

And if you do think that that is good for the economy, let me ask some follow up questions.

When the government has to pay back those loans, where will they get the tax money from?  Me, or the rest of the economy?

If the government can no longer afford to borrow, what will they do?  Print the money?  You are suggesting that the government printing large quantities of money, giving that money to me, and having me buy goods with it will help the economy?  Stop giving me money?  They still need to raise taxes (again, not on me) and what will happen to all the jobs and businesses I support with my consumption?
 
2013-03-20 01:09:28 PM  
$3 back for every $1 paid in? That's pretty good. If you really want to be disgusted, try calculating the value (with interest) of your payments for home insurance over the lifetime of your house.
 
2013-03-20 01:09:39 PM  

MattStafford: Alright, look guys - I'll try to make this as simple as possible:



"To make a long story shor.."

"TOO LATE!"
 
2013-03-20 01:09:49 PM  

qorkfiend: Are you seriously asking whether injecting $2 trillion into the economy is a good thing?


Yeah, I am.  Why not inject 100 trillion into the economy?  And if injecting 100 trillion into the economy is a bad thing, and injecting 2 trillion into the economy is a good thing, why is that?  Where is the inflection point that changes it from good to bad?  What causes that inflection point to happen?
 
2013-03-20 01:09:52 PM  

MattStafford: Imagine the recipients of Medicare and Social Security as one collective entity


But they aren't one collective entity.....
 
2013-03-20 01:10:03 PM  

MattStafford: Suppose instead of that one collective entity, it was just me receiving that money.  If the US government borrowed the same amount of money every year, and just gave it to me, would that still be good for the economy?


You couldn't possibly spend the same amount that they do. Your little thought experiment is retarded. You are retarded. Fark off, RON PAUL tardnomics troll.

MattStafford: And if you do think that that is good for the economy, let me ask some follow up questions.


We're all out of potatoes.
 
2013-03-20 01:10:31 PM  
 

MattStafford: Alright, look guys - I'll try to make this as simple as possible:

Imagine the recipients of Medicare and Social Security as one collective entity.  They receive a great deal of borrowed money every year that they use to spend on goods and services.  People in this thread are claiming that this is good for the economy.

Suppose instead of that one collective entity, it was just me receiving that money.  If the US government borrowed the same amount of money every year, and just gave it to me, would that still be good for the economy?

And if you do think that that is good for the economy, let me ask some follow up questions.

When the government has to pay back those loans, where will they get the tax money from?  Me, or the rest of the economy?

If the government can no longer afford to borrow, what will they do?  Print the money?  You are suggesting that the government printing large quantities of money, giving that money to me, and having me buy goods with it will help the economy?  Stop giving me money?  They still need to raise taxes (again, not on me) and what will happen to all the jobs and businesses I support with my consumption?


When are you going to admit you lied when you claimed to have earned a degree in economics?
 
2013-03-20 01:11:04 PM  

MattStafford: qorkfiend: MattStafford: If I printed ten trillion dollars, and bought ten trillion dollars worth of goods and services, would our economy be better off?

What do you think happens to that $10 trillion? It doesn't just vanish.

So are you agreeing that the economy would be better off?  What if I printed 20 trillion dollars, and hired every single working age person in America to produce goods for me?  Would the economy be better off then?


Is this stupid analogy time?
 
2013-03-20 01:11:05 PM  

FarkedOver: MattStafford: Imagine the recipients of Medicare and Social Security as one collective entity

But they aren't one collective entity.....


No no, see you have to imagine it - because his problem is imaginary.
 
2013-03-20 01:11:07 PM  

MattStafford: Alright, look guys - I'll try to make this as simple as possible:

Imagine the recipients of Medicare and Social Security as one collective entity.  They receive a great deal of borrowed money every year that they use to spend on goods and services.  People in this thread are claiming that this is good for the economy.

Suppose instead of that one collective entity, it was just me receiving that money.  If the US government borrowed the same amount of money every year, and just gave it to me, would that still be good for the economy?

And if you do think that that is good for the economy, let me ask some follow up questions.

When the government has to pay back those loans, where will they get the tax money from?  Me, or the rest of the economy?

If the government can no longer afford to borrow, what will they do?  Print the money?  You are suggesting that the government printing large quantities of money, giving that money to me, and having me buy goods with it will help the economy?  Stop giving me money?  They still need to raise taxes (again, not on me) and what will happen to all the jobs and businesses I support with my consumption?


Stop asking the same questions over and over which have been answered in many other threads.
 
2013-03-20 01:11:17 PM  

MattStafford: Suppose instead of that one collective entity, it was just me receiving that money.


So completely change the crux of the argument.

You can't run a nation from a spreadsheet, get over it.
 
2013-03-20 01:11:32 PM  

MattStafford: If you replace me with a bunch of seniors, would it be good for the economy then?


YES.
 
2013-03-20 01:12:01 PM  

qorkfiend: MattStafford: qorkfiend: MattStafford: If I printed ten trillion dollars, and bought ten trillion dollars worth of goods and services, would our economy be better off?

What do you think happens to that $10 trillion? It doesn't just vanish.

So are you agreeing that the economy would be better off? What if I printed 20 trillion dollars, and hired every single working age person in America to produce goods for me? Would the economy be better off then?

If every single working age person in America was being regularly paid for work it would be spectacular for the economy.


This is a joke.  What the fark are they going to buy with their money?  I'm employing literally every able bodied person in America to produce goods for me to consume!  They won't have anything to purchase!  What good is the money going to do for them?
 
2013-03-20 01:12:04 PM  

MattStafford: Buying shiat does not help the economy!  Christ, how difficult is that to understand?

If a bank loaned me two trillion dollars, and I bought and consumed two trillion dollars worth of goods, would that help the economy?


Are you really that dumb, or are you just screwing with us?
 
2013-03-20 01:12:54 PM  

farm3.static.flickr.comView Full Size

MattStafford (artist's conception)

 
2013-03-20 01:12:58 PM  

Epoch_Zero: FarkedOver: MattStafford: Imagine the recipients of Medicare and Social Security as one collective entity

But they aren't one collective entity.....

No no, see you have to imagine it - because his problem is imaginary.


Ohhhh so i have to suspend my belief in reality and check my brain out and travel the potato brick road to tardville to understand this economic principle he has..... sounds like fun. I am going to need some acid and airplane glue for this journey.
 
2013-03-20 01:13:30 PM  

DamnYankees: I repeat: I understand that you fundamentally disagree with Keynesian economics, but is there some reason that you need to re-start every single thread pretending not to know what Keynesian's think, and re-asking the same questions over and over again?

We've been through this many times before.


Because people keep biting.  Want to shut him up?  Stop responding to him.
 
2013-03-20 01:13:46 PM  

FarkedOver: MattStafford: Imagine the recipients of Medicare and Social Security as one collective entity

But they aren't one collective entity.....


Why would the effect on the economy be different if it was one person spending the money as opposed to one thousand people?  The same amount of money is injected into the economy.
 
2013-03-20 01:13:53 PM  
Look guys, here it is in a nutshell. If you don't believe Medicare is bad then imagine all that money being stuffed into an eggplant and shoved up a giraffe's ass. Do you think that's good for the economy?
 
2013-03-20 01:14:16 PM  

Rapmaster2000: If this headline was a person, it would corner you in a bar and rant about how the judge gave all of its money to its ex-wife.


It took me a couple of years to get the ranting under control.   But that farkin' judge did give all my money to my ex-wife.

/  Sleepin' in my car
//  She's in Vegas
/// Single payer
 
2013-03-20 01:14:30 PM  

DamnYankees: MattStafford: If a bank loaned me two trillion dollars, and I bought and consumed two trillion dollars worth of goods, would that help the economy?

In the current economy? Yes. A lot.

Look, I understand that you fundamentally disagree with Keynesian economics, but is there some reason that you need to re-start every single thread pretending not to know what Keynesian's think, and re-asking the same questions over and over again?


Same exact style used by that evolution topic troller, Levets.
 
2013-03-20 01:14:54 PM  

MattStafford: qorkfiend: MattStafford: qorkfiend: MattStafford: If I printed ten trillion dollars, and bought ten trillion dollars worth of goods and services, would our economy be better off?

What do you think happens to that $10 trillion? It doesn't just vanish.

So are you agreeing that the economy would be better off? What if I printed 20 trillion dollars, and hired every single working age person in America to produce goods for me? Would the economy be better off then?

If every single working age person in America was being regularly paid for work it would be spectacular for the economy.

This is a joke.  What the fark are they going to buy with their money?  I'm employing literally every able bodied person in America to produce goods for me to consume!  They won't have anything to purchase!  What good is the money going to do for them?


When are you going to admit you lied when you claimed to have earned a degree in economics?
 
2013-03-20 01:15:09 PM  

MattStafford: Alright, look guys - I'll try to make this as simple as possible:

Imagine the recipients of Medicare and Social Security as one collective entity.  They receive a great deal of borrowed money every year that they use to spend on goods and services.  People in this thread are claiming that this is good for the economy.

Suppose instead of that one collective entity, it was just me receiving that money.  If the US government borrowed the same amount of money every year, and just gave it to me, would that still be good for the economy?

It Depends on what you spend the money on.  Hookers and blow?  No.  Cars?  Yes.

And if you do think that that is good for the economy, let me ask some follow up questions.

When the government has to pay back those loans, where will they get the tax money from?  Me, or the rest of the economy?
Taxes are paid in a variety of ways including payroll taxes, sales taxes, and income taxes.  Increased cash flow into an economy will result in several transactions in which at least one of these taxes is paid, generating money for the government.
If the government can no longer afford to borrow, what will they do?  Print the money?  You are suggesting that the government printing large quantities of money, giving that money to me, and having me buy goods with it will help the economy?  Stop giving me money?  They still need to raise taxes (again, not on me) and what will happen to all the jobs and businesses I support with my consumption?
Since the government is not a traditional player in a market and does not behave in its own self-interest, it's difficult to say exactly what would happen if the government simply kept borrowing money.  What we do know, is that during a time of recession, a government should spend money and operate at a loss (i.e. borrow).

A government budget does not (and should not) be balanced 100% of the time.  It should, however, be balanced over the long run.  To your credit, the US government has done a poor job of balancing a budget and paying back debt during times of economic prosperity.
 
2013-03-20 01:15:20 PM  

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.
 
2013-03-20 01:15:22 PM  

CPennypacker: MattStafford: cameroncrazy1984: Because old people buy lots of things and that helps the economy. I don't understand why this has to be explained to you over and over again.

Buying shiat does not help the economy!  Christ, how difficult is that to understand?

If a bank loaned me two trillion dollars, and I bought and consumed two trillion dollars worth of goods, would that help the economy?

YES


Seriously, a Fark Economist doesn't understand velocity of money?  Wow.
 
m00
2013-03-20 01:15:42 PM  

MattStafford: What the fark are they going to buy with their money?


crap made in China?
 
2013-03-20 01:15:55 PM  

MattStafford: FarkedOver: MattStafford: Imagine the recipients of Medicare and Social Security as one collective entity

But they aren't one collective entity.....

Why would the effect on the economy be different if it was one person spending the money as opposed to one thousand people?  The same amount of money is injected into the economy.


If you came into one trillion dollars.... shortly thereafter you would be the proud owner of the world's only one trillion dollar potato.  You've got that going for you!
 
2013-03-20 01:16:03 PM  
 
2013-03-20 01:16:29 PM  

DarwiOdrade: Look guys, here it is in a nutshell. If you don't believe Medicare is bad then imagine all that money being stuffed into an eggplant and shoved up a giraffe's ass. Do you think that's good for the economy?


Only if coconuts come out.
 
2013-03-20 01:17:17 PM  

MattStafford: FarkedOver: MattStafford: Imagine the recipients of Medicare and Social Security as one collective entity

But they aren't one collective entity.....

Why would the effect on the economy be different if it was one person spending the money as opposed to one thousand people?  The same amount of money is injected into the economy.


This post is worth 1000 facepalms.
 
2013-03-20 01:17:39 PM  

MattStafford: FarkedOver: MattStafford: Imagine the recipients of Medicare and Social Security as one collective entity

But they aren't one collective entity.....

Why would the effect on the economy be different if it was one person spending the money as opposed to one thousand people?  The same amount of money is injected into the economy.


Because economies are not made by pools of money.  They are made by transfers of money.

One guy spending a trillion dollars does not make an economy, because no one else has any money.

One thousand guys spending a trillion dollars makes an economy because everyone has money to spend.
 
2013-03-20 01:17:39 PM  

DarwiOdrade: Look guys, here it is in a nutshell. If you don't believe Medicare is bad then imagine all that money being stuffed into an eggplant and shoved up a giraffe's ass. Do you think that's good for the economy?


Hmmm, now that you put it that way....yes, I'm starting to understand, yes...
 
2013-03-20 01:17:48 PM  
Conceptualize the economy as two entities - Me, MattStafford, and every other actor in the economy.

Start:  MattStafford has X goods and Y dollars.  Everyone else has A goods and Y dollars.

MattStafford prints one trillion new dollars, and buys goods from everyone else.

End:  MattStafford has X goods + 1 trillion dollars more worth of goods and Y dollars.  Everyone else has A goods - 1 trillion dollars worth of goods, and Y + 1 trillion dollars.

Are you actually suggesting that the rest of the economy benefited from that transaction?
 
2013-03-20 01:18:16 PM  

MattStafford: Conceptualize the economy as two entities - Me, MattStafford, and every other actor in the economy.

Start:  MattStafford has X goods and Y dollars.  Everyone else has A goods and Y dollars.

MattStafford prints one trillion new dollars, and buys goods from everyone else.

End:  MattStafford has X goods + 1 trillion dollars more worth of goods and Y dollars.  Everyone else has A goods - 1 trillion dollars worth of goods, and Y + 1 trillion dollars.

Are you actually suggesting that the rest of the economy benefited from that transaction?


When are you going to admit you lied when you claimed to have earned a degree in economics?
 
2013-03-20 01:18:17 PM  
i.imgur.comView Full Size
 
2013-03-20 01:18:34 PM  

FarkedOver: If you came into one trillion dollars.... shortly thereafter you would be the proud owner of the world's only one trillion dollar potato.  You've got that going for you human-potato hybrid

 
2013-03-20 01:18:50 PM  

Fart_Machine: MattStafford: FarkedOver: MattStafford: Imagine the recipients of Medicare and Social Security as one collective entity

But they aren't one collective entity.....

Why would the effect on the economy be different if it was one person spending the money as opposed to one thousand people?  The same amount of money is injected into the economy.

This post is worth 1000 facepalms.


It's as if millions of potatoes cried out and were suddenly silenced.
 
2013-03-20 01:19:02 PM  

MattStafford: qorkfiend: MattStafford: qorkfiend: MattStafford: If I printed ten trillion dollars, and bought ten trillion dollars worth of goods and services, would our economy be better off?

What do you think happens to that $10 trillion? It doesn't just vanish.

So are you agreeing that the economy would be better off? What if I printed 20 trillion dollars, and hired every single working age person in America to produce goods for me? Would the economy be better off then?

If every single working age person in America was being regularly paid for work it would be spectacular for the economy.

This is a joke.  What the fark are they going to buy with their money?  I'm employing literally every able bodied person in America to produce goods for me to consume!  They won't have anything to purchase!  What good is the money going to do for them?


So, you imagine that no one would ever leave your employ in order to start a business selling things to your employees, who are flush with cash thanks to being employed?
 
2013-03-20 01:19:20 PM  

MattStafford: Conceptualize the economy as two entities - Me, MattStafford, and every other actor in the economy.

Start:  MattStafford has X goods and Y dollars.  Everyone else has A goods and Y dollars.

MattStafford prints one trillion new dollars, and buys goods from everyone else.

End:  MattStafford has X goods + 1 trillion dollars more worth of goods and Y dollars.  Everyone else has A goods - 1 trillion dollars worth of goods, and Y + 1 trillion dollars.

Are you actually suggesting that the rest of the economy benefited from that transaction?


Where do th eeggplant and giraffe fit in here? Are they part of A?
 
2013-03-20 01:19:37 PM  

Epoch_Zero: FarkedOver: If you came into one trillion dollars.... shortly thereafter you would be the proud owner of the world's only one trillion dollar potato.  You've got that going for you human-potato hybrid


Wow, I screwed that one up.
 
2013-03-20 01:20:07 PM  

Lando Lincoln: So yeah,

we should totally abandon Medicare and let old people die. Well...old people that can't afford to pay for their treatments die. We are a Christian Nation, after all. Everybody knows how much Jesus hated sick people.

Sadly, there are more than a couple farkers who think that's EXACTLY what we should do.

I am not one of them, but they are out there.
 
2013-03-20 01:20:34 PM  

m00: MattStafford: What the fark are they going to buy with their money?

crap made in China?


Why would people in China accept dollars?  They have nothing to spend it on either!
 
2013-03-20 01:20:49 PM  

DarwiOdrade: Fart_Machine: MattStafford: FarkedOver: MattStafford: Imagine the recipients of Medicare and Social Security as one collective entity

But they aren't one collective entity.....

Why would the effect on the economy be different if it was one person spending the money as opposed to one thousand people?  The same amount of money is injected into the economy.

This post is worth 1000 facepalms.

It's as if millions of potatoes cried out and were suddenly silenced.


Billions and billions of potatoes
 
2013-03-20 01:20:54 PM  

MattStafford: MattStafford prints one trillion new dollars, and buys goods from everyone else.

End: MattStafford has X goods + 1 trillion dollars more worth of goods and Y dollars. Everyone else has A goods - 1 trillion dollars worth of goods, and Y + 1 trillion dollars.

Are you actually suggesting that the rest of the economy benefited from that transaction?


The selling and buying of goods does not affect the economy.  This is what Matt Stafford actually believes.
 
2013-03-20 01:20:57 PM  

MattStafford: Conceptualize the economy as two entities - Me, MattStafford, and every other actor in the economy.

Start:  MattStafford has X goods and Y dollars.  Everyone else has A goods and Y dollars.

MattStafford prints one trillion new dollars, and buys goods from everyone else.

End:  MattStafford has X goods + 1 trillion dollars more worth of goods and Y dollars.  Everyone else has A goods - 1 trillion dollars worth of goods, and Y + 1 trillion dollars.

Are you actually suggesting that the rest of the economy benefited from that transaction?


Is 'X' coconuts or bananas?
 
2013-03-20 01:21:01 PM  

qorkfiend: MattStafford: qorkfiend: MattStafford: qorkfiend: MattStafford: If I printed ten trillion dollars, and bought ten trillion dollars worth of goods and services, would our economy be better off?

What do you think happens to that $10 trillion? It doesn't just vanish.

So are you agreeing that the economy would be better off? What if I printed 20 trillion dollars, and hired every single working age person in America to produce goods for me? Would the economy be better off then?

If every single working age person in America was being regularly paid for work it would be spectacular for the economy.

This is a joke.  What the fark are they going to buy with their money?  I'm employing literally every able bodied person in America to produce goods for me to consume!  They won't have anything to purchase!  What good is the money going to do for them?

So, you imagine that no one would ever leave your employ in order to start a business selling things to your employees, who are flush with cash thanks to being employed?


Dude, you're, like, not conceptualizing....
 
2013-03-20 01:21:08 PM  
It's a simple question: If the U.S. Government lent me all the money in the country, and I went to Vegas and bet it all on black and lost, would that be good for the economy? I don't understand why people aren't taking this simple analogy seriously.

Follow-up question:  If you were a hot dog, and you were starving, would you eat yourself?
 
2013-03-20 01:21:22 PM  
Jesus Christ was an extraterrestrial.
 
2013-03-20 01:21:28 PM  

MattStafford: m00: MattStafford: What the fark are they going to buy with their money?

crap made in China?

Why would people in China accept dollars?  They have nothing to spend it on either!


When are you going to admit you lied when you claimed to have earned a degree in economics?
 
2013-03-20 01:21:33 PM  
Man you all are easy to troll
 
2013-03-20 01:21:47 PM  

Rent Party: One guy spending a trillion dollars does not make an economy, because no one else has any money.

One thousand guys spending a trillion dollars makes an economy because everyone has money to spend.


If I spend a trillion dollars, then everyone I spent that money on now has money to spend!  As long as I'm not hoarding it, that money is circulating throughout the economy.
 
2013-03-20 01:21:48 PM  

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!


No. F*ck you. Die.
 
2013-03-20 01:22:01 PM  

Car_Ramrod: Wow, subs, were you able to finish while writing that headline?

Anyways:

Steuerle said that he was not trying to single out Medicare, but was trying to focus on both Social Security and Medicare. "I think we would probably engage in a better reform if we tried to reform both systems at the same time," he said in an e-mail.

But, if Medicare is the one with the problem, why does the other need reform? And why isn't it noted that the ratio has dropped from 7:1 for a 65 year old in 1960 to 3:1 in 2030? And does he realize you don't actually get that money when they pay for your services? Maybe services are too damned expensive. But that's crazy talk. I'm sure the answer is to cut off the poor people.


Exactly.

"I paid into Medicare $5 for that lousy pill and Medicare was billed $80 for that aspirin.  Damn you Fartschlongo!"
 
2013-03-20 01:22:08 PM  

MattStafford: Rent Party: One guy spending a trillion dollars does not make an economy, because no one else has any money.

One thousand guys spending a trillion dollars makes an economy because everyone has money to spend.

If I spend a trillion dollars, then everyone I spent that money on now has money to spend!  As long as I'm not hoarding it, that money is circulating throughout the economy.


When are you going to admit you lied when you claimed to have earned a degree in economics?
 
2013-03-20 01:22:11 PM  
Look, you guys just aren't understanding: Conceptualize the economy as a frictionless sphere of constant density. On this sphere there are two potatoes, one of whom has all of the coconuts and the other has all of the gravity. Now, if the gravity potato trades all of his gravity to the coconut potato, but the coconut potato only has X-1 coconuts, the gravity potato AND the coconut potato will float away, and the sphere will collapse into a black hole.

DO YOU GET IT NOW, LIIIIBS?
 
2013-03-20 01:22:22 PM  

MattStafford: qorkfiend: MattStafford: qorkfiend: MattStafford: If I printed ten trillion dollars, and bought ten trillion dollars worth of goods and services, would our economy be better off?

What do you think happens to that $10 trillion? It doesn't just vanish.

So are you agreeing that the economy would be better off? What if I printed 20 trillion dollars, and hired every single working age person in America to produce goods for me? Would the economy be better off then?

If every single working age person in America was being regularly paid for work it would be spectacular for the economy.

This is a joke.  What the fark are they going to buy with their money?  I'm employing literally every able bodied person in America to produce goods for me to consume!  They won't have anything to purchase!  What good is the money going to do for them?


Wait a second, so in this example, you are the government (since you're printing money), but everyone else (non-government), is making goods that only you, the government can use. So you're paying these people (with the money you borrowed), though paying them doesn't really mean anything since there's nothing left for them to consume?  And this example is supposed to prove what point?

For a while I really thought you were someone who just had a different view than most posters here, and while I didn't agree, I'd at least read what you have to say. But this thread has shown me you really are purposely misconstruing points just to have people engage in hypothetical debates that have no basis in reality. You're officially going on the Ignore list, and I hope others do the same, so that future posts aren't ruined.
 
2013-03-20 01:22:51 PM  

max_pooper: DarwiOdrade: Fart_Machine: MattStafford: FarkedOver: MattStafford: Imagine the recipients of Medicare and Social Security as one collective entity

But they aren't one collective entity.....

Why would the effect on the economy be different if it was one person spending the money as opposed to one thousand people?  The same amount of money is injected into the economy.

This post is worth 1000 facepalms.

It's as if millions of potatoes cried out and were suddenly silenced.

Billions and billions of potatoes


Carl Sagan approves.
 
2013-03-20 01:23:19 PM  
It's a simple question doctor.
 
2013-03-20 01:24:01 PM  

skullkrusher: meat0918: skullkrusher: Dr. Whoof: cameroncrazy1984: skullkrusher: isn't the point of Medicare to give people more than they pay for?

I thought that was usually how insurance worked, yeah.

The concept of shared risk pooling is too difficult for Cletus to understand, so let's end Medicare.

if the average person is getting $3 back for every $1 put in, that's not very effective risk pooling.

Medicare was never about effective risk pooling for the government, it was about helping people the insurance companies refuse to cover because they are too high risk to cover profitably.

which was my original point.


Ok, nevermind then.

It seems to me the most pragmatic solution is to expand Medicare to everyone.
 
2013-03-20 01:24:22 PM  

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
 
2013-03-20 01:24:24 PM  

MattStafford: Rent Party: One guy spending a trillion dollars does not make an economy, because no one else has any money.

One thousand guys spending a trillion dollars makes an economy because everyone has money to spend.

If I spend a trillion dollars, then everyone I spent that money on now has money to spend!  As long as I'm not hoarding it, that money is circulating throughout the economy.


Guess what, if you were a plutocrat, you'd be f*cking hoarding it.  Trickle-down is what a yellow lab does on your leg, not what the GOP claims happens in the economy.
 
2013-03-20 01:24:41 PM  

qorkfiend: So, you imagine that no one would ever leave your employ in order to start a business selling things to your employees, who are flush with cash thanks to being employed?


Why would they do that?  There is no benefit to them doing that, as there is nothing for them to buy?

Imagine you were one of the people being employed by me - your two options are continue working for me and consume nothing (there is nothing that I'm not consuming) or work for someone else that I'm employing, and consume nothing (there is nothing that either myself or your new employer isn't consuming).
 
2013-03-20 01:25:29 PM  

A Dark Evil Omen: Look, you guys just aren't understanding: Conceptualize the economy as a frictionless sphere of constant density. On this sphere there are two potatoes, one of whom has all of the coconuts and the other has all of the gravity. Now, if the gravity potato trades all of his gravity to the coconut potato, but the coconut potato only has X-1 coconuts, the gravity potato AND the coconut potato will float away, and the sphere will collapse into a black hole.

DO YOU GET IT NOW, LIIIIBS?


Dunno about you but I don't think anyone who espouses anarcho-socialism as a viable economic-political structure should be mocking anyone. Just sayin
 
2013-03-20 01:25:40 PM  

ShawnDoc: The selling and buying of goods does not affect the economy. This is what Matt Stafford actually believes.


If I printed up hundreds of trillions of dollars, and started buying every good I could possibly see, would you think that this is good or bad for the economy?
 
2013-03-20 01:25:44 PM  

MattStafford: qorkfiend: So, you imagine that no one would ever leave your employ in order to start a business selling things to your employees, who are flush with cash thanks to being employed?

Why would they do that?  There is no benefit to them doing that, as there is nothing for them to buy?

Imagine you were one of the people being employed by me - your two options are continue working for me and consume nothing (there is nothing that I'm not consuming) or work for someone else that I'm employing, and consume nothing (there is nothing that either myself or your new employer isn't consuming).


How many potatoes could you consume in one afternoon?
 
2013-03-20 01:25:55 PM  

MattStafford: qorkfiend: So, you imagine that no one would ever leave your employ in order to start a business selling things to your employees, who are flush with cash thanks to being employed?

Why would they do that?  There is no benefit to them doing that, as there is nothing for them to buy?

Imagine you were one of the people being employed by me - your two options are continue working for me and consume nothing (there is nothing that I'm not consuming) or work for someone else that I'm employing, and consume nothing (there is nothing that either myself or your new employer isn't consuming).


When are you going to admit you lied when you claimed to have earned a degree in economics?
 
2013-03-20 01:26:07 PM  

MattStafford: cameroncrazy1984: Because old people buy lots of things and that helps the economy. I don't understand why this has to be explained to you over and over again.

Buying shiat does not help the economy!  Christ, how difficult is that to understand?


Just wanted to point this out.  Buying stuff doesn't help the economy.  Got it.

/please be a troll, don't tell me you believe this
 
m00
2013-03-20 01:26:14 PM  

MattStafford: Why would people in China accept dollars?


Dollars are the world reserve currency... dude, last time I was  inChina, everywhere I went  preferred US dollars to the yuan. So they already do accept dollars, and prefer them over their own currency...

So what makes you think people in China won't accept dollars?
 
2013-03-20 01:26:38 PM  

MattStafford: ShawnDoc: The selling and buying of goods does not affect the economy. This is what Matt Stafford actually believes.

If I printed up hundreds of trillions of dollars, and started buying every good I could possibly see, would you think that this is good or bad for the economy?


When are you going to admit you lied when you claimed to have earned a degree in economics?
 
2013-03-20 01:27:29 PM  
Sounds like someone moved from a GED in law to a GED in economics. Switch the names and the post style match up.
 
m00
2013-03-20 01:27:33 PM  

MattStafford: If I printed up hundreds of trillions of dollars, and started buying every good I could possibly see, would you think that this is good or bad for the economy?


You would go to jail for counterfeiting. Until they caught you, would probably be good for the local economies.
 
2013-03-20 01:27:43 PM  

max_pooper: MattStafford: ShawnDoc: The selling and buying of goods does not affect the economy. This is what Matt Stafford actually believes.

If I printed up hundreds of trillions of dollars, and started buying every good I could possibly see, would you think that this is good or bad for the economy?

When are you going to admit you lied when you claimed to have earned a degree in economics?


Can you give the back story to this, max? It sounds entertaining.
 
2013-03-20 01:28:02 PM  

sharpness: Wait a second, so in this example, you are the government (since you're printing money), but everyone else (non-government), is making goods that only you, the government can use. So you're paying these people (with the money you borrowed), though paying them doesn't really mean anything since there's nothing left for them to consume? And this example is supposed to prove what point?


If the government massively increased employment for the MIC, would that not be a similar situation.  If the government made a jobs programs that was to build 100,000 F35s, and paid top dollar to employ everyone, would that not be a similar scenario?

And if the government did decide to enact such a jobs program, would that jobs program be good for America?  Or bad for America?
 
2013-03-20 01:28:10 PM  
i0.kym-cdn.comView Full Size
 
2013-03-20 01:28:12 PM  

FarkedOver: Jesus Christ was an extraterrestrial.


i1.kym-cdn.comView Full Size


MattStafford: Imagine you were one of the people being employed by me


Would you be paying me in dollars or gold or TrollBits?
 
2013-03-20 01:28:28 PM  

sharpness: MattStafford: qorkfiend: MattStafford: qorkfiend: MattStafford: If I printed ten trillion dollars, and bought ten trillion dollars worth of goods and services, would our economy be better off?

What do you think happens to that $10 trillion? It doesn't just vanish.

So are you agreeing that the economy would be better off? What if I printed 20 trillion dollars, and hired every single working age person in America to produce goods for me? Would the economy be better off then?

If every single working age person in America was being regularly paid for work it would be spectacular for the economy.

This is a joke.  What the fark are they going to buy with their money?  I'm employing literally every able bodied person in America to produce goods for me to consume!  They won't have anything to purchase!  What good is the money going to do for them?

Wait a second, so in this example, you are the government (since you're printing money), but everyone else (non-government), is making goods that only you, the government can use. So you're paying these people (with the money you borrowed), though paying them doesn't really mean anything since there's nothing left for them to consume?  And this example is supposed to prove what point?

For a while I really thought you were someone who just had a different view than most posters here, and while I didn't agree, I'd at least read what you have to say. But this thread has shown me you really are purposely misconstruing points just to have people engage in hypothetical debates that have no basis in reality. You're officially going on the Ignore list, and I hope others do the same, so that future posts aren't ruined.


Agreed 100%.  Up until this post, I thought he just had a unique viewpoint or maybe a fundamental misunderstanding of a core principal of macroeconomics.  Now, though, I can clearly see he's just A) developmentally delayed or B) an incredibly successful Troll.
 
2013-03-20 01:28:45 PM  

thismomentinblackhistory: max_pooper: MattStafford: ShawnDoc: The selling and buying of goods does not affect the economy. This is what Matt Stafford actually believes.

If I printed up hundreds of trillions of dollars, and started buying every good I could possibly see, would you think that this is good or bad for the economy?

When are you going to admit you lied when you claimed to have earned a degree in economics?

Can you give the back story to this, max? It sounds entertaining.


Stafford laughably claimed to have a degree in economics. Now Pooper asks him over and over again to admit he lied.

/not CSB
 
2013-03-20 01:29:28 PM  

Job Creator: Just wanted to point this out. Buying stuff doesn't help the economy. Got it.

/please be a troll, don't tell me you believe this


Maybe this is difficult for you to understand.  If I printed up several trillion dollars, and bought a whole ton of shiat, it would not help the economy.  If you think otherwise, you're completely brainwashed.
 
2013-03-20 01:30:08 PM  

MattStafford: ShawnDoc: The selling and buying of goods does not affect the economy. This is what Matt Stafford actually believes.

If I printed up hundreds of trillions of dollars, and started buying every good I could possibly see, would you think that this is good or bad for the economy?


Do you have a good view of the goods? How high are you to see all the goods at once? Who produced the goods if you have all the money?

Fark off, troll.
 
2013-03-20 01:30:16 PM  
Anyway, back to the topic at hand... The only way to get that number down without radical change is to increase the size of the risk pool. Which means expanding Medicare.

Of course, the people advancing this nonsense are radical rightists who just want to dismantle public services so they can spend more on the military.
 
2013-03-20 01:30:25 PM  

Lando Lincoln: MattStafford: Buying shiat does not help the economy!  Christ, how difficult is that to understand?

If a bank loaned me two trillion dollars, and I bought and consumed two trillion dollars worth of goods, would that help the economy?

Are you really that dumb, or are you just screwing with us?


I like to believe the latter, but he probably is the former.

Some folks just don't understand the economics of getting a loan and spending it on good and services.  Notice that every time someone tried explaining it, he moves the goalposts and attacks a strawman.
 
2013-03-20 01:30:35 PM  

cretinbob: [imagemacros.files.wordpress.com image 600x450]


///Wait until subtard finds out about private health insurance


Private insurance gets away with it by not paying out.
 
2013-03-20 01:31:01 PM  

MyKingdomForYourHorse: Man you all are easy to troll


Oh come on. This guy is hilarious.
 
2013-03-20 01:31:37 PM  

m00: You would go to jail for counterfeiting. Until they caught you, would probably be good for the local economies.


I stumble onto a town that uses their own currency.  I print up a shiat ton of their currency, buy as many goods as possible, and continue on my merry way.  You are suggesting that that local economy is better off, even though I left with a large quantity of real good and it cost me nothing?

The magic of Keynesian economics.
 
2013-03-20 01:31:57 PM  
So, just raise everyones taxes by a multiple of 3, problem fixed.
 
2013-03-20 01:31:59 PM  

MattStafford: Job Creator: Just wanted to point this out. Buying stuff doesn't help the economy. Got it.

/please be a troll, don't tell me you believe this

Maybe this is difficult for you to understand.  If I printed up several trillion dollars, and bought a whole ton of shiat, it would not help the economy.  If you think otherwise, you're completely brainwashed.


i0.kym-cdn.comView Full Size
 
2013-03-20 01:32:04 PM  

A Dark Evil Omen: Anyway, back to the topic at hand... The only way to get that number down without radical change is to increase the size of the risk pool. Which means expanding Medicare.

Of course, the people advancing this nonsense are radical rightists who just want to dismantle public services so they can spend more on the military.


Do you give it another 10 years before we can try, or am I being to optimistic, and the reality is we're looking at 25-50 before the USA finally jumps on the single payer bandwagon?
 
2013-03-20 01:32:26 PM  
Reading this "discussion" is like watching a monkey fark a football. Ultimately pointless, a little funny, and at least someone is having a good time.
 
2013-03-20 01:32:32 PM  

MattStafford: qorkfiend: So, you imagine that no one would ever leave your employ in order to start a business selling things to your employees, who are flush with cash thanks to being employed?

Why would they do that?  There is no benefit to them doing that, as there is nothing for them to buy?

Imagine you were one of the people being employed by me - your two options are continue working for me and consume nothing (there is nothing that I'm not consuming) or work for someone else that I'm employing, and consume nothing (there is nothing that either myself or your new employer isn't consuming).


Why would anybody imagine this scenario? Even from a thought experiment stand point it makes no sense.
 
2013-03-20 01:32:38 PM  

MattStafford: m00: You would go to jail for counterfeiting. Until they caught you, would probably be good for the local economies.

I stumble onto a town that uses their own currency.  I print up a shiat ton of their currency, buy as many goods as possible, and continue on my merry way.  You are suggesting that that local economy is better off, even though I left with a large quantity of real good and it cost me nothing?

The magic of Keynesian economics.


i3.kym-cdn.comView Full Size
 
2013-03-20 01:32:45 PM  

MattStafford: Job Creator: Just wanted to point this out. Buying stuff doesn't help the economy. Got it.

/please be a troll, don't tell me you believe this

Maybe this is difficult for you to understand.  If I printed up several trillion dollars, and bought a whole ton of shiat, it would not help the economy.  If you think otherwise, you're completely brainwashed.


That's because if you printed up several trillion dollars, they would be counterfeit.
 
2013-03-20 01:32:48 PM  
batibleki.visitaruba.comView Full Size
 
2013-03-20 01:32:52 PM  

thismomentinblackhistory: max_pooper: MattStafford: ShawnDoc: The selling and buying of goods does not affect the economy. This is what Matt Stafford actually believes.

If I printed up hundreds of trillions of dollars, and started buying every good I could possibly see, would you think that this is good or bad for the economy?

When are you going to admit you lied when you claimed to have earned a degree in economics?

Can you give the back story to this, max? It sounds entertaining.


In one of the first threads MattStafford popped up in he was going on and on with his stupidity. Somebody told him he should take an economics course. He claimed that he took enough economics class to earn an economics degree. With all his ignorance not many people believe him. He tried to back track on it by saying he did earn a degree but no longer believes any of the stuff he learned.

Let me look through the archives and see if I can find the thread. I think it was about California. I;ll report back when I find it.
 
2013-03-20 01:33:31 PM  

Tomahawk513: It Depends on what you spend the money on.  Hookers and blow?  No.  Cars?  Yes.


Hookers, pimps and drug dealers are part of the economy, so that would work too - they go out and buy grills and alloy rims and new beamers, and the jewelers, dentists, car salesman all have more money which then goes on to circulate through the whole economy, in the end boosting it for everyone (some more than others as always).
 
2013-03-20 01:33:42 PM  

MattStafford: Job Creator: Just wanted to point this out. Buying stuff doesn't help the economy. Got it.

/please be a troll, don't tell me you believe this

Maybe this is difficult for you to understand.  If I printed up several trillion dollars, and bought a whole ton of shiat, it would not help the economy.  If you think otherwise, you're completely brainwashed.


it would, actually. That injection of cash would stimulate demand which in turn stimulates more demand. The inflationary impact, if any, would not be immediately apparent. That's why it works to stimulate the economy out of recession but is not a good idea as a matter of continuing policy
 
2013-03-20 01:33:46 PM  
There is a town that produces a variety of goods.  They have their own currency.  I print up a ton of currency, go to this town, and buy a bunch of their goods.  I leave the town with these real goods.

The town is better off after this happened.

Keynes, baby.
 
2013-03-20 01:33:50 PM  

meat0918: A Dark Evil Omen: Anyway, back to the topic at hand... The only way to get that number down without radical change is to increase the size of the risk pool. Which means expanding Medicare.

Of course, the people advancing this nonsense are radical rightists who just want to dismantle public services so they can spend more on the military.

Do you give it another 10 years before we can try, or am I being to optimistic, and the reality is we're looking at 25-50 before the USA finally jumps on the single payer bandwagon?


With two right-wing parties in government, I think "ever" is optimistic.
 
2013-03-20 01:34:29 PM  

MattStafford: CPennypacker: Then you run out of coconuts

Then you result to ad hominems, because your precious theory completely falls apart.


Buddy, you're the one moving goalposts. Stones in glass houses and all.
 
2013-03-20 01:34:45 PM  

LoneWolf343: That's because if you printed up several trillion dollars, they would be counterfeit.


How is it different if the government printed them up?  If the government printed them and gave them to me, would the economics change at all?
 
2013-03-20 01:35:28 PM  

MattStafford: There is a town that produces a variety of goods.  They have their own currency.  I print up a ton of currency, go to this town, and buy a bunch of their goods.  I leave the town with these real goods.

The town is better off after this happened.

Keynes, baby.


I know you're full of shiat but this post is hilarious because it made me picture John Maynard Keynes rising from his grave and beating the living shiat out of you.
 
2013-03-20 01:35:49 PM  

meat0918: Your right. We should ritually murder every person once they hit the age of 65. That's the way to go.


Hey, If it puts one more ivory back scratcher into the hands of some entitled prick who doesn't want it, then it's worth the suffering and lamentations of millions.

This is what I've learned from America. Put the most into the hands of those who least appreciate it.
 
2013-03-20 01:36:12 PM  

MattStafford: There is a town that produces a variety of goods.  They have their own currency.  I print up a ton of currency, go to this town, and buy a bunch of their goods.  I leave the town with these real goods.

The town is better off after this happened.

Keynes, baby.


i0.kym-cdn.comView Full Size

BUT IT WORKS IN MY MIIIIIND! WAAHH
AGREE WITH ME!!
PLEAAAASE!
 
2013-03-20 01:37:08 PM  

skullkrusher: it would, actually. That injection of cash would stimulate demand which in turn stimulates more demand. The inflationary impact, if any, would not be immediately apparent. That's why it works to stimulate the economy out of recession but is not a good idea as a matter of continuing policy


It would help it in the short term, I agree.  It would actively hurt it in the long term, however.

I print up currency and hire a bunch of people to dig ditches and fill them back in.  They go out and use that currency to buy goods and services.  Demand picks up, production picks up, the economy is booming.

I stop printing money, and fire all of the ditch diggers.  They stop consuming.  Demand drops.  Production drops.  You return to the status quo, except you suffer the huge opportunity cost of all of those people digging ditches when they could have been doing something else.
 
2013-03-20 01:37:34 PM  

MattStafford: There is a town that produces a variety of goods.  They have their own currency.  I print up a ton of currency, go to this town, and buy a bunch of their goods.  I leave the town with these real goods.

The town is better off after this happened.

Keynes, baby.


This is a great analogy to absolutely nothing that has happened, is happening, or ever will happen.
 
2013-03-20 01:37:49 PM  

CPennypacker: I know you're full of shiat but this post is hilarious because it made me picture John Maynard Keynes rising from his grave and beating the living shiat out of you.


How is the post full of shiat?  Isn't that what people in this thread are arguing?  Injecting currency into an economy makes it stronger?
 
2013-03-20 01:38:28 PM  

max_pooper: thismomentinblackhistory: max_pooper: MattStafford: ShawnDoc: The selling and buying of goods does not affect the economy. This is what Matt Stafford actually believes.

If I printed up hundreds of trillions of dollars, and started buying every good I could possibly see, would you think that this is good or bad for the economy?

When are you going to admit you lied when you claimed to have earned a degree in economics?

Can you give the back story to this, max? It sounds entertaining.

In one of the first threads MattStafford popped up in he was going on and on with his stupidity. Somebody told him he should take an economics course. He claimed that he took enough economics class to earn an economics degree. With all his ignorance not many people believe him. He tried to back track on it by saying he did earn a degree but no longer believes any of the stuff he learned.

Let me look through the archives and see if I can find the thread. I think it was about California. I;ll report back when I find it.



Found it. If you don't want to read through the entire thread, just skip to page two and do an ctrl+f "degree". That's where he claims to have an economics degree with some bonus stupidity about how consumption is not good for the economy.

http://www.fark.com/comments/7549150/Remember-last-week-when-Gov-Bro wn -announced-that-for-first-time-in-20-years-California-was-no-longer-go ing-to-be-a-fiscal-laughingstock-Yeahabout-that?startid=82042658
 
2013-03-20 01:38:38 PM  

Epoch_Zero: MattStafford: There is a town that produces a variety of goods.  They have their own currency.  I print up a ton of currency, go to this town, and buy a bunch of their goods.  I leave the town with these real goods.

The town is better off after this happened.

Keynes, baby.

[i0.kym-cdn.com image 191x177]
BUT IT WORKS IN MY MIIIIIND! WAAHH
AGREE WITH ME!!
PLEAAAASE!


Isn't that what people are arguing?  Injecting currency into an economy makes it stronger?  Does it not work in this example?
 
2013-03-20 01:39:03 PM  

MattStafford: Job Creator: Just wanted to point this out. Buying stuff doesn't help the economy. Got it.

/please be a troll, don't tell me you believe this

Maybe this is difficult for you to understand.  If I printed up several trillion dollars, and bought a whole ton of shiat, it would not help the economy.  If you think otherwise, you're completely brainwashed.


OK dude, I am pretty conservative and agree with a lot  of what you say, I've even had people accuse me of being your alt, but come on. If you printed up a few trillion dollars and spent it, it would obviously and absolutely help the economy. Now, I disagree with the vast majority of people here in that I think the benefit of the government going into debt by a few trillion in order to put that money in the economy is decreasing as our debt increases, but it will still help the economy. The only question is a cost:benefit one. Does the benefit of the stimulation to the economy outweigh the cost of going into debt in order to do so?
 
2013-03-20 01:39:54 PM  

MattStafford: I stop printing money, and fire all of the ditch diggers.  They stop consuming.  Demand drops.  Production drops.  You return to the status quo, except you suffer the huge opportunity cost of all of those people digging ditches when they could have been doing something else.


And there we have it : "fark the poor! Why don't they just get rich like me instead of focusing so much on being poor?"
 
2013-03-20 01:39:56 PM  

MattStafford: LoneWolf343: That's because if you printed up several trillion dollars, they would be counterfeit.

How is it different if the government printed them up?  If the government printed them and gave them to me, would the economics change at all?


I suppose in the extremely unlikely event that they printed up several trillion dollars immediately and gave them to you, it would have an effect.

Yet, we don't have to worry about that, because the government isn't expanding the money supply by several trillion, and they would most certainly not just give it to a half-baked half-witted troll with not the economic understanding to win a game of Monopoly.
 
2013-03-20 01:40:05 PM  

MattStafford: skullkrusher: it would, actually. That injection of cash would stimulate demand which in turn stimulates more demand. The inflationary impact, if any, would not be immediately apparent. That's why it works to stimulate the economy out of recession but is not a good idea as a matter of continuing policy

It would help it in the short term, I agree.  It would actively hurt it in the long term, however.

I print up currency and hire a bunch of people to dig ditches and fill them back in.  They go out and use that currency to buy goods and services.  Demand picks up, production picks up, the economy is booming.

I stop printing money, and fire all of the ditch diggers.  They stop consuming.  Demand drops.  Production drops.  You return to the status quo, except you suffer the huge opportunity cost of all of those people digging ditches when they could have been doing something else.


the point is to stimulate. The point being that this initial stimulation results in a positive feedback loop that becomes self sustaining even in the absence of the liquidity injection. If the injection of cash did not help the economy gain traction, the economy would slump again once it is removed. There is a very famous example of this from the 30s.
 
2013-03-20 01:40:07 PM  

Tomahawk513: MattStafford: There is a town that produces a variety of goods.  They have their own currency.  I print up a ton of currency, go to this town, and buy a bunch of their goods.  I leave the town with these real goods.

The town is better off after this happened.

Keynes, baby.

This is a great analogy to absolutely nothing that has happened, is happening, or ever will happen.


If the government printed money and gave it to a retired person, who then purchased something, isn't that pretty similar?  They bought goods from the town (rest of society) and then left (never produced anything in the society).  The actions of an elderly person spending freshly printed currency received by the government are identical to my actions in that town.  Unless you have a reason as to why they aren't.
 
2013-03-20 01:40:14 PM  

MattStafford: CPennypacker: I know you're full of shiat but this post is hilarious because it made me picture John Maynard Keynes rising from his grave and beating the living shiat out of you.

How is the post full of shiat?  Isn't that what people in this thread are arguing?  Injecting currency into an economy makes it stronger?


No no no, you're full of shiat.
 
2013-03-20 01:40:57 PM  

runin800m: OK dude, I am pretty conservative and agree with a lot of what you say, I've even had people accuse me of being your alt, but come on. If you printed up a few trillion dollars and spent it, it would obviously and absolutely help the economy. Now, I disagree with the vast majority of people here in that I think the benefit of the government going into debt by a few trillion in order to put that money in the economy is decreasing as our debt increases, but it will still help the economy. The only question is a cost:benefit one. Does the benefit of the stimulation to the economy outweigh the cost of going into debt in order to do so?


It helps in the short term, of course.  Unless it is spent on productive projects, it hurts in the long term.
 
2013-03-20 01:41:10 PM  

MattStafford: If I printed up several trillion dollars, and bought a whole ton of shiat, it would not help the economy.


Why don't you do it and prove us wrong? Why are you wasting your time typing on the Internet?
 
2013-03-20 01:41:16 PM  

Tomahawk513: MattStafford: There is a town that produces a variety of goods.  They have their own currency.  I print up a ton of currency, go to this town, and buy a bunch of their goods.  I leave the town with these real goods.

The town is better off after this happened.

Keynes, baby.

This is a great analogy to absolutely nothing that has happened, is happening, or ever will happen.


I don't think he understand the concept of borrowing money.  He thinks its the same as printing unbacked currency.
 
2013-03-20 01:41:40 PM  

MattStafford: LoneWolf343: That's because if you printed up several trillion dollars, they would be counterfeit.

How is it different if the government printed them up?  If the government printed them and gave them to me, would the economics change at all?


Considering the value of the dollar has not degraded in direct proportion to the amount of new money supply, observable reality shows that printing REAL currency clearly has a different result than printing counterfeit currency. The reasons are complex and that is why your attempts to reduce the largest economy in the world down to two people continue to show an entirely juvenile view of economics.

/coconuts
 
2013-03-20 01:41:53 PM  

skullkrusher: the point is to stimulate. The point being that this initial stimulation results in a positive feedback loop that becomes self sustaining even in the absence of the liquidity injection. If the injection of cash did not help the economy gain traction, the economy would slump again once it is removed. There is a very famous example of this from the 30s.


What about the negative feedback loop that occurs when the stimulus is pulled back?  Do feedback loops only work in one way?
 
2013-03-20 01:42:14 PM  

MattStafford: Epoch_Zero: MattStafford: There is a town that produces a variety of goods.  They have their own currency.  I print up a ton of currency, go to this town, and buy a bunch of their goods.  I leave the town with these real goods.

The town is better off after this happened.

Keynes, baby.

[i0.kym-cdn.com image 191x177]
BUT IT WORKS IN MY MIIIIIND! WAAHH
AGREE WITH ME!!
PLEAAAASE!

Isn't that what people are arguing?  Injecting currency into an economy makes it stronger?  Does it not work in this example?


Yes, due to you trying to troll by claiming it doesn't - yes it does - and no.

Also, not actually an example.
 
2013-03-20 01:43:07 PM  
img855.imageshack.usView Full Size


"If you say 'imagine' again, I'm going to rise from the grave and beat the shiat out of you."
 
2013-03-20 01:43:11 PM  
Ok, for all of you who took debate, what is the name for the logical fallacy for what Matt is doing?

- Take a very complex subject and then over simplify it
- Point out that your over simplification doesn't work
- Then claim that since your over simplification won't work, neither does the original subject

Does that just get lumped in with strawman, or is there a better fit?
 
2013-03-20 01:43:11 PM  

MattStafford: runin800m: OK dude, I am pretty conservative and agree with a lot of what you say, I've even had people accuse me of being your alt, but come on. If you printed up a few trillion dollars and spent it, it would obviously and absolutely help the economy. Now, I disagree with the vast majority of people here in that I think the benefit of the government going into debt by a few trillion in order to put that money in the economy is decreasing as our debt increases, but it will still help the economy. The only question is a cost:benefit one. Does the benefit of the stimulation to the economy outweigh the cost of going into debt in order to do so?

It helps in the short term, of course.  Unless it is spent on productive projects, it hurts in the long term.


When are you going to admit you lied when you claimed to have earned a degree in economics?
 
2013-03-20 01:43:29 PM  

MattStafford: skullkrusher: the point is to stimulate. The point being that this initial stimulation results in a positive feedback loop that becomes self sustaining even in the absence of the liquidity injection. If the injection of cash did not help the economy gain traction, the economy would slump again once it is removed. There is a very famous example of this from the 30s.

What about the negative feedback loop that occurs when the stimulus is pulled back?  Do feedback loops only work in one way?


Read.
 
2013-03-20 01:43:29 PM  

max_pooper: Found it. If you don't want to read through the entire thread, just skip to page two and do an ctrl+f "degree". That's where he claims to have an economics degree with some bonus stupidity about how consumption is not good for the economy.

http://www.fark.com/comments/7549150/Remember-last-week-when-Gov-Bro wn -announced-that-for-first-time-in-20-years-California-was-no-longer-go ing-to-be-a-fiscal-laughingstock-Yeahabout-that?startid=82042658


I'll bet he has a GED in law and a black belt in medicine, too.
 
2013-03-20 01:43:41 PM  

Antimatter: I don't think he understand the concept of borrowing money. He thinks its the same as printing unbacked currency.


It isn't identical, but if the government has made it policy to print money to pay that debt off (which the Federal Reserve has) it is very similar.
 
2013-03-20 01:44:46 PM  

MattStafford: Antimatter: I don't think he understand the concept of borrowing money. He thinks its the same as printing unbacked currency.

It isn't identical, but if the government has made it policy to print money to pay that debt off (which the Federal Reserve has) it is very similar.


When are you going to admit you lied when you claimed to have earned a degree in economics?
 
2013-03-20 01:44:57 PM  

MattStafford: skullkrusher: the point is to stimulate. The point being that this initial stimulation results in a positive feedback loop that becomes self sustaining even in the absence of the liquidity injection. If the injection of cash did not help the economy gain traction, the economy would slump again once it is removed. There is a very famous example of this from the 30s.

What about the negative feedback loop that occurs when the stimulus is pulled back?  Do feedback loops only work in one way?

 
2013-03-20 01:44:59 PM  
Sub:liberal fact checker

You use that word but I'm not convinced you know what it means.
 
2013-03-20 01:45:05 PM  

Epoch_Zero: MattStafford: Epoch_Zero: MattStafford: There is a town that produces a variety of goods.  They have their own currency.  I print up a ton of currency, go to this town, and buy a bunch of their goods.  I leave the town with these real goods.

The town is better off after this happened.

Keynes, baby.

[i0.kym-cdn.com image 191x177]
BUT IT WORKS IN MY MIIIIIND! WAAHH
AGREE WITH ME!!
PLEAAAASE!

Isn't that what people are arguing?  Injecting currency into an economy makes it stronger?  Does it not work in this example?

Yes, due to you trying to troll by claiming it doesn't - yes it does - and no.

Also, not actually an example.


Why does it not work in that example? Why would me injecting money into that economy not work?  What makes it different from monetary injections that do work?
 
2013-03-20 01:45:32 PM  

max_pooper: MattStafford: Antimatter: I don't think he understand the concept of borrowing money. He thinks its the same as printing unbacked currency.

It isn't identical, but if the government has made it policy to print money to pay that debt off (which the Federal Reserve has) it is very similar.

When are you going to admit you lied when you claimed to have earned a degree in economics?


jeez dude, it's getting old now
 
2013-03-20 01:45:46 PM  

skullkrusher: MattStafford: skullkrusher: it would, actually. That injection of cash would stimulate demand which in turn stimulates more demand. The inflationary impact, if any, would not be immediately apparent. That's why it works to stimulate the economy out of recession but is not a good idea as a matter of continuing policy

It would help it in the short term, I agree.  It would actively hurt it in the long term, however.

I print up currency and hire a bunch of people to dig ditches and fill them back in.  They go out and use that currency to buy goods and services.  Demand picks up, production picks up, the economy is booming.

I stop printing money, and fire all of the ditch diggers.  They stop consuming.  Demand drops.  Production drops.  You return to the status quo, except you suffer the huge opportunity cost of all of those people digging ditches when they could have been doing something else.

the point is to stimulate. The point being that this initial stimulation results in a positive feedback loop that becomes self sustaining even in the absence of the liquidity injection. If the injection of cash did not help the economy gain traction, the economy would slump again once it is removed. There is a very famous example of this from the 30s.


We're just quibbling over the size and target of such a stimulus package.  How much is needed for an economy with a GDP of $15 trillion dollars?  I'd say 700 billion, with 1/3 of that being tax cuts, and the passage of which made it difficult to pass a much needed transportation infrastructure funding bill, was probably too small.
 
2013-03-20 01:46:10 PM  

skullkrusher: max_pooper: MattStafford: Antimatter: I don't think he understand the concept of borrowing money. He thinks its the same as printing unbacked currency.

It isn't identical, but if the government has made it policy to print money to pay that debt off (which the Federal Reserve has) it is very similar.

When are you going to admit you lied when you claimed to have earned a degree in economics?

jeez dude, it's getting old now


I kind of like it. Its catchy!
 
2013-03-20 01:46:15 PM  

MattStafford: DamnYankees: I repeat: I understand that you fundamentally disagree with Keynesian economics, but is there some reason that you need to re-start every single thread pretending not to know what Keynesian's think, and re-asking the same questions over and over again?

We've been through this many times before.

Because until people understand that it is bullshiat, it needs to be restarted.


I think you dropped your lance, over there next to that windmill.


We are all very, very tired of hearing from you.  You're not even a troll, you're just stupid.  The economy does not work the way you think it does.  And will not work the way you think it should.
STFU and GBTW
 
2013-03-20 01:47:15 PM  

ShawnDoc: Ok, for all of you who took debate, what is the name for the logical fallacy for what Matt is doing?

- Take a very complex subject and then over simplify it
- Point out that your over simplification doesn't work
- Then claim that since your over simplification won't work, neither does the original subject

Does that just get lumped in with strawman, or is there a better fit?


To counter that argument, you would need to explicitly explain why the simplification does not work.  You can't simply say "that isn't how it works", you need to say "that isn't how it works because of X,Y, and Z".  Still waiting on that second part.
 
2013-03-20 01:48:04 PM  

MattStafford: Why does it not work in that example?


ShawnDoc: - Take a very complex subject and then over simplify it
- Point out that your over simplification doesn't work
- Then claim that since your over simplification won't work, neither does the original subject


You must have earned your economics degree from the FoxNews School of misunderestimating. Keynesian economics doesn't work that way and is vastly more complicated. But you already know this, which is why you're a troll.
 
2013-03-20 01:48:18 PM  
MattStafford: Epoch_Zero: MattStafford: Epoch_Zero: MattStafford: There is a town that produces a variety of goods.  They have their own currency.  I print up a ton of currency, go to this town, and buy a bunch of their goods.  I leave the town with these real goods.

The town is better off after this happened.

Keynes, baby.

[i0.kym-cdn.com image 191x177]
BUT IT WORKS IN MY MIIIIIND! WAAHH
AGREE WITH ME!!
PLEAAAASE!

Isn't that what people are arguing?  Injecting currency into an economy makes it stronger?  Does it not work in this example?

Yes, due to you trying to troll by claiming it doesn't - yes it does - and no.

Also, not actually an example.

Why does it not work in that example? Why would me injecting money into that economy not work?  What makes it different from monetary injections that do work?


It seems like this is something a person would learn while taking economics class in pursuit of an economics degree.

When are you going to admit you lied when you claimed to have earned a degree in economics?
 
2013-03-20 01:48:59 PM  

Epoch_Zero: MattStafford: skullkrusher: the point is to stimulate. The point being that this initial stimulation results in a positive feedback loop that becomes self sustaining even in the absence of the liquidity injection. If the injection of cash did not help the economy gain traction, the economy would slump again once it is removed. There is a very famous example of this from the 30s.

What about the negative feedback loop that occurs when the stimulus is pulled back?  Do feedback loops only work in one way?

Read.


So are you suggesting that there is no negative feedback that comes when a government stops spending?  How does the government cut spending without creating a drop in demand and a negative feedback loop?
 
2013-03-20 01:49:58 PM  

MattStafford: Tomahawk513: MattStafford: There is a town that produces a variety of goods.  They have their own currency.  I print up a ton of currency, go to this town, and buy a bunch of their goods.  I leave the town with these real goods.

The town is better off after this happened.

Keynes, baby.

This is a great analogy to absolutely nothing that has happened, is happening, or ever will happen.

If the government printed money and gave it to a retired person, who then purchased something, isn't that pretty similar?  They bought goods from the town (rest of society) and then left (never produced anything in the society).  The actions of an elderly person spending freshly printed currency received by the government are identical to my actions in that town.  Unless you have a reason as to why they aren't.


The more appropriate question would be, can anyone but yourself NOT pick out a dozen holes in this argument?  Here we go:
1) The government isn't simply printing money, it's borrowing it.
2) The retired person likely did produce something during their lifetime.
3) Money spent by that person will generate tax revenue:
3a) Sales tax from buying a good or service.
3b) Business will pay payroll taxes to its employees.
3c) Employees will pay income taxes on their wages.
4) That retired person has paid into that system in the past; it is not simply the government printing money like a malfunctioning HP.
 
2013-03-20 01:50:31 PM  

MattStafford: skullkrusher: it would, actually. That injection of cash would stimulate demand which in turn stimulates more demand. The inflationary impact, if any, would not be immediately apparent. That's why it works to stimulate the economy out of recession but is not a good idea as a matter of continuing policy

It would help it in the short term, I agree.  It would actively hurt it in the long term, however.

I print up currency and hire a bunch of people to dig ditches and fill them back in.  They go out and use that currency to buy goods and services.  Demand picks up, production picks up, the economy is booming.

I stop printing money, and fire all of the ditch diggers.  They stop consuming.  Demand drops.  Production drops.  You return to the status quo, except you suffer the huge opportunity cost of all of those people digging ditches when they could have been doing something else.


Actually you've managed to show why wealth concentration amongst a tiny elite is a bad idea. Nobody has proposed this except for the GOP "job creator" mythology which you seem to adhere to.
 
2013-03-20 01:50:34 PM  

CPennypacker: skullkrusher: max_pooper: MattStafford: Antimatter: I don't think he understand the concept of borrowing money. He thinks its the same as printing unbacked currency.

It isn't identical, but if the government has made it policy to print money to pay that debt off (which the Federal Reserve has) it is very similar.

When are you going to admit you lied when you claimed to have earned a degree in economics?

jeez dude, it's getting old now

I kind of like it. Its catchy!


I don't, it's really old. I've never put ANYONE on ignore and don't respect those who do, but pooper is making it seem more and more palatable.
 
2013-03-20 01:51:05 PM  

Fart_Machine: Oh come on. This guy is hilarious.


He's not the finest we've seen, but I have to admit now as this thread continues its getting progressively more entertaining

1-media-cdn.foolz.usView Full Size
 
2013-03-20 01:51:25 PM  

skullkrusher: MattStafford: skullkrusher: the point is to stimulate. The point being that this initial stimulation results in a positive feedback loop that becomes self sustaining even in the absence of the liquidity injection. If the injection of cash did not help the economy gain traction, the economy would slump again once it is removed. There is a very famous example of this from the 30s.

What about the negative feedback loop that occurs when the stimulus is pulled back?  Do feedback loops only work in one way?


So if I'm following you correctly, you are saying that if the government instituted a jobs program, the economy would eventually get to a point where they could cut the jobs program with no negative consequences?

And what about the taxes to pay for that jobs program?  How does that affect the feedback loop?
 
2013-03-20 01:51:31 PM  
The Austrian School is autism expressed as an economic theory by libertarians who can't pass Calculus. ~Ishkur

http://www.fark.com/comments/7605430/82660250#c82660250

Interestingly enough, in ANOTHER thread that MattStafford threadshat in.
 
2013-03-20 01:53:26 PM  

MattStafford: So are you suggesting that there is no negative feedback that comes when a government stops spending?


No, I'm not, troll.

MattStafford: How does the government cut spending without creating a drop in demand and a negative feedback loop?


Continue until it is self-sustaining. Recovery from the US depression in the 30's didn't happen until after WW2. It would have taken longer had WW2 not occurred and necessitated the government spending on the war effort.

Troll harder.
 
2013-03-20 01:54:34 PM  

DamnYankees: Dusk-You-n-Me: mrshowrules: You should eliminate the age requirements.

Medicare for all would be fine by me.

We should.

[s3.amazonaws.com image 480x295]


I think you guys fail to understand how medicare actually works...

My roommate used to work for HCA in the billing department, and this is how medicare works (and why medicare is actually causing your premiums to go up on your private insurance):

Someone with medicare comes in, they don't pay a copay - everything gets billed the government.  The government says, okay, we're willing to pay this much, and sends that amount back to the hopsital. The hospital is typically out about 25% because medicare only actually covers 75% of the hospitals cost.  So then the hospital, trying to recoup those losses, passes it on to the insurance companies of the people who are privately insured.

So yes - the cost per person of people who are privately insured is going up - but a large part of that is because of medicare.  That's why you start seeing hospitals that are popping up that refuse to take people who have medicare (and are allowed to because they are for profit) and a whole bunch of the non-profit (that have to take medicare) failing.

The solution for this is for the government to regulate the costs across the board - not just say, "We are only paying this amount for medicare services".  Just because the costs of medicare services only get paid out by the government at a certain rate doesn't mean x-company that sells supplies is taking that into account.
 
2013-03-20 01:54:52 PM  

skullkrusher: Via Infinito: Sorry subs. Washington Post is on my no-clicky list. Nice try though.

WP? Sure you aren't confusing it with the Washington Times? WT is a pile of poop. WP isn't bad, relatively speaking.


Pretty sure.
 
2013-03-20 01:54:56 PM  

MattStafford: Epoch_Zero: MattStafford: skullkrusher: the point is to stimulate. The point being that this initial stimulation results in a positive feedback loop that becomes self sustaining even in the absence of the liquidity injection. If the injection of cash did not help the economy gain traction, the economy would slump again once it is removed. There is a very famous example of this from the 30s.

What about the negative feedback loop that occurs when the stimulus is pulled back?  Do feedback loops only work in one way?

Read.

So are you suggesting that there is no negative feedback that comes when a government stops spending?  How does the government cut spending without creating a drop in demand and a negative feedback loop?


Because by the time the government pulls back on spending *EPIC DRUM ROLL HERE*...

THE ECONOMY IS STRONGER AND CAN ABSORB AN INFLUX OF UNEMPLOYED PERSONS!
 
2013-03-20 01:54:59 PM  

MyKingdomForYourHorse: Man you all are easy to troll


Meh.  It's the same people using the guy as a punching bag, thread after thread.  Let em go.

varifrank.comView Full Size
 
2013-03-20 01:55:28 PM  

MattStafford: And what about the taxes to pay for that jobs program? How does that affect the feedback loop?


24.media.tumblr.comView Full Size