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

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

2704 clicks; posted to Politics » on 20 Mar 2013 at 12:24 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread
 
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.com


///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.com
 
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.


www.dreamstime.com

"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.com
 
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.

www.mybaycity.com
 
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.com

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.com
 
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.com
 
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.com
 
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.com
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.com
 
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.com
 
2013-03-20 01:28:12 PM

FarkedOver: Jesus Christ was an extraterrestrial.


i1.kym-cdn.com

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.com
 
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.com
 
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.com
 
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.com
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.us

"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.us
 
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.com
 
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.com
 
2013-03-20 01:55:29 PM
MattStafford:  i0.kym-cdn.com
 
2013-03-20 01:55:59 PM

MattStafford: 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?


Well, I can't speak for him but if the government instituted a jobs program that consisted of jobs that had some value, like repairing/investing in bridges/roads/public infrastructure and things of that nature, then the economy could get to a point where the negative consequences of cutting the jobs program would be less than the benefit that was gained from it.
 
2013-03-20 01:56:39 PM

Tomahawk513: 1) The government isn't simply printing money, it's borrowing it.


Currently it is printing money, via QE, and it seems likely that that is only going to increase in the near future.

Tomahawk513: 2) The retired person likely did produce something during their lifetime.


Who cares?  We are talking about the effects of policy now.  His past actions are irrelevant.  If you are suggesting he saved money instead, then that is different.

Tomahawk513: 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.


That is exactly what would happen in the analogy with the small town, so I'm not sure why you would consider it a failure of the analogy.

Tomahawk513: 4) That retired person has paid into that system in the past; it is not simply the government printing money like a malfunctioning HP.


But the money that he paid into the system was already spent on other things.

The elderly person produced in the past, and attempted to save that money via the Social Security Trust Fund.  The SSTF loaned the money to the government, who spent it on whatever.
 
2013-03-20 01:58:22 PM

lordjupiter: 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.com image 250x192]


He deserves it. And comes back for more, asking us to continue. As friendly and accommodating farkers, how can we turn him away?
 
2013-03-20 01:58:23 PM

MattStafford: 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?


no, there are negative consequences to cutting off the jobs program. The point, however, is to have the organic economic growth to the point where the net impact is positive.
 
2013-03-20 01:58:41 PM

Epoch_Zero: 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.


So continue spending until it is self sustaining.  How much stimulus is required for it to be self sustaining?  What about the taxes that are eventually taken out to pay for that government spending?  Does that not produce a negative feedback loop?
 
2013-03-20 01:59:17 PM
reidreport.com

"Hey Matt Stafford, if I gave you a trillion dollars to spend, can you spend it on Friends of Hamas and tell that whore Ann Coulter to drown in a bathtab made of my taint sweat? Thanks."
 
2013-03-20 01:59:25 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!


like herpes
 
2013-03-20 02:00:44 PM

runin800m: Well, I can't speak for him but if the government instituted a jobs program that consisted of jobs that had some value, like repairing/investing in bridges/roads/public infrastructure and things of that nature, then the economy could get to a point where the negative consequences of cutting the jobs program would be less than the benefit that was gained from it.


And I agree with that, 100%.  Borrowing money and using it for valuable jobs is a good thing.  I'm on record as being in favor of spending borrowed money on education, infrastructure, R+D, and several other productive projects. I'm curious as to how it works when that money isn't used for valuable jobs, but for straight consumption, a la Social Security.
 
2013-03-20 02:00:45 PM
Honestly? I don't have a problem if Medicare isn't self-sustaining, just like I don't give two shiats if the Post Office operates at a loss. That's the point.

Government does these things because the private sector can't. I would much rather go bankrupt as a country funding healthcare for our most in need instead of going bankrupt bombing and dieing in some shiat hole in the Middle East.
 
2013-03-20 02:00:52 PM

skullkrusher: 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!

like herpes


Look, I already said I was sorry. How many times do I have to say it!
 
2013-03-20 02:00:56 PM

Via Infinito: 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.


the WP endorsed BO
 
2013-03-20 02:01:39 PM

CPennypacker: skullkrusher: 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!

like herpes

Look, I already said I was sorry. How many times do I have to say it!


I'm just reminded of it each time I sit down.
"It's probably just hemorrhoids", my ass!
 
2013-03-20 02:02:41 PM

MattStafford: when that money isn't used for valuable jobs, but for straight consumption, a la Social Security.


Because people on social security do not purchase anything with their cashed checks, everyone knows old people bury their money in tin cars in the back yard.

*facepalm
 
2013-03-20 02:03:22 PM

skullkrusher: no, there are negative consequences to cutting off the jobs program. The point, however, is to have the organic economic growth to the point where the net impact is positive.


But the very nature of the jobs program means that the growth isn't organic, it is artificial.

If the government hired a bunch of unemployed people to dig ditches and fill them back in, a bunch of other unemployed people could start making a living providing services and selling those guys goods.  But once the government stops the ditch digging program, the economy collapses.  In fact, the ditch digging program actually prevented any organic growth from happening.  The artificial growth used real resources and labor that could have been used to create actual, organic growth.
 
2013-03-20 02:03:52 PM

skilbride: 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.


This is a long way of saying that Medicare is better at negotiating prices than private insurance companies.
 
2013-03-20 02:04:33 PM

MattStafford: But the very nature of the jobs program means that the growth isn't organic, it is artificial.


ok, just cut it out now.
 
2013-03-20 02:05:10 PM

Lunchlady: Honestly? I don't have a problem if Medicare isn't self-sustaining, just like I don't give two shiats if the Post Office operates at a loss. That's the point.

Government does these things because the private sector can't. I would much rather go bankrupt as a country funding healthcare for our most in need instead of going bankrupt bombing and dieing in some shiat hole in the Middle East.


I'd like to find out who the first guy was that decided that the idea "government should be run like a business" was a good one and either cockpunch him or piss on his grave.
 
2013-03-20 02:05:37 PM

Lunchlady: Honestly? I don't have a problem if Medicare isn't self-sustaining, just like I don't give two shiats if the Post Office operates at a loss. That's the point.

Government does these things because the private sector can't. I would much rather go bankrupt as a country funding healthcare for our most in need instead of going bankrupt bombing and dieing in some shiat hole in the Middle East.


The problem with medicare though specifically is that it is the one program the government has that can cause a business that otherwise would be profitable (or at the very least, break even) to take a loss as well.  

To take your post office example, the post office exists, as do Fedex and UPS.  When you want better service, you go to FedEx and UPS.

Medicare doesn't have a version of that though, you go where-ever you want, and then that company gets stiffed on the cost of their bill.  That would the be the equivilant of saying, "Hey UPS, this guy is poor, so only charge him 37 cents on this letter even though it's going to cost you $1.... because the government said so!"
 
2013-03-20 02:06:42 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.


If you read the chart Carefully, this is that for every $1 a person earning $44k a year puts into the system, that same person eventually gets out $3, "assuming" that congress continues to vote to stop payment cuts every year like they have done in the past.

This completely ignores that Medicare unlike Social Security is intended to be a progressive taxation system, so yes, just like every other tax out there, the average person making $44k a year pays little into the system.
 
2013-03-20 02:07:06 PM

skilbride: Medicare doesn't have a version of that though, you go where-ever you want, and then that company gets stiffed on the cost of their bill.  That would the be the equivilant of saying, "Hey UPS, this guy is poor, so only charge him 37 cents on this letter even though it's going to cost you $1.... because the government said so!"


It's called bargaining. No hospital operating without government subsidies has to accept Medicare. It's their choice.
 
2013-03-20 02:07:31 PM

skilbride: Lunchlady: Honestly? I don't have a problem if Medicare isn't self-sustaining, just like I don't give two shiats if the Post Office operates at a loss. That's the point.

Government does these things because the private sector can't. I would much rather go bankrupt as a country funding healthcare for our most in need instead of going bankrupt bombing and dieing in some shiat hole in the Middle East.

The problem with medicare though specifically is that it is the one program the government has that can cause a business that otherwise would be profitable (or at the very least, break even) to take a loss as well.  

To take your post office example, the post office exists, as do Fedex and UPS.  When you want better service, you go to FedEx and UPS.

Medicare doesn't have a version of that though, you go where-ever you want, and then that company gets stiffed on the cost of their bill.  That would the be the equivilant of saying, "Hey UPS, this guy is poor, so only charge him 37 cents on this letter even though it's going to cost you $1.... because the government said so!"


lol?
 
2013-03-20 02:07:32 PM

MyKingdomForYourHorse: MattStafford: when that money isn't used for valuable jobs, but for straight consumption, a la Social Security.

Because people on social security do not purchase anything with their cashed checks, everyone knows old people bury their money in tin cars in the back yard.

*facepalm


It is almost like you didn't read the post.

Elderly people pay for a ton of doctors.  Medicare stops paying out.  Elderly people can no longer afford doctors.  Raise taxes elsewhere to pay for the debt accrued.  Negative feedback loop, and the economy collapses.

Government pays to build needed infrastructure.  Bridge gets finished.  Construction workers are fired.  Raise taxes elsewhere to pay for bridge.  Bridge has created enough economic activity to pay for the taxes and to have the construction workers find new jobs.

Can't you see the difference between these two scenarios?
 
2013-03-20 02:07:49 PM

Lunchlady: Government does these things because the private sector can't. I would much rather go bankrupt as a country funding healthcare for our most in need instead of going bankrupt bombing and dieing in some shiat hole in the Middle East.


Maybe we could... I don't know... not go bankrupt for either? Or is that just crazy talk?

MattStafford: I'm curious as to how it works when that money isn't used for valuable jobs, but for straight consumption, a la Social Security.


Well, if that's the case then medicare is what you should be looking at much more so than SS. Medicare is what we are really funding with debt. Social Security isn't really in bad shape at all. It will have problems in a few years but there are some very simple and relatively minor adjustments that can be made to solve those problems into the foreseeable future.
 
2013-03-20 02:08:54 PM

DamnYankees: skilbride: 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.

This is a long way of saying that Medicare is better at negotiating prices than private insurance companies.


But they don't negotiate prices.  The government SETS the prices.  They say you will get this, and you can't argue.  They do it without regard to the price of the hospital pays for the services.

For instance, in France and most of the Europe they regulate how much you can charge for an MRI machine, etc etc - they do this because all the hospitals are government funded so they can set the prices.  For medicare to actually work, you need to have hospitals that are government funded and operated hospitals, and then they can set the prices of supplies from the companies selling them.  As it stands right now, the market sets the prices, and the government says, "We can only afford this much so that's what you're getting."
 
2013-03-20 02:09:14 PM
So are we all in favor of death panels now?

//costs too much to keep them old ones alive
 
2013-03-20 02:09:48 PM
i1204.photobucket.com
 
2013-03-20 02:10:04 PM

skullkrusher: MattStafford: But the very nature of the jobs program means that the growth isn't organic, it is artificial.

ok, just cut it out now.


You are suggesting that a government jobs program is going to create real and sustainable growth.  I'm arguing that the growth created by a government jobs program will disappear once the program is finished.

And guess what - I have real world examples.  Think about any town where a huge employer is the military, either a military base or a MIC company.  That is essentially a jobs program.  And it creates a whole ton of other jobs in the area.  What happens when that jobs program ends?  Are you willing to make the argument that if you spent more and more money on that military base or bought more and more goods from that MIC plant, eventually the surrounding economy would be self sustaining and not suffer as a result from the base/plant closing?
 
2013-03-20 02:10:36 PM

DamnYankees: skilbride: Medicare doesn't have a version of that though, you go where-ever you want, and then that company gets stiffed on the cost of their bill.  That would the be the equivilant of saying, "Hey UPS, this guy is poor, so only charge him 37 cents on this letter even though it's going to cost you $1.... because the government said so!"

It's called bargaining. No hospital operating without government subsidies has to accept Medicare. It's their choice.


Well yes, that's true.  And hospitals like HCA (which don't) are setting record profits.  It's the hospitals that accept government funding and medicare that are collapsing.
 
2013-03-20 02:10:38 PM

MattStafford: Can't you see the difference between these two scenarios?


Yes, I've seen this logic before somewhere.

www.timecube.com
 
2013-03-20 02:11:32 PM

runin800m: Well, if that's the case then medicare is what you should be looking at much more so than SS. Medicare is what we are really funding with debt. Social Security isn't really in bad shape at all. It will have problems in a few years but there are some very simple and relatively minor adjustments that can be made to solve those problems into the foreseeable future.


Certainly Medicare is the primary problem, but any consumption financed via debt is bad for the economy in the long run.
 
2013-03-20 02:11:33 PM

skilbride: But they don't negotiate prices.  The government SETS the prices.  They say you will get this, and you can't argue.  They do it without regard to the price of the hospital pays for the services.


First of all, this isn't true inasmuch as the government doesn't set prices in a vacuum. It talks with various industry representatives.

Secondly, even if you I grant you the premise that they just set prices on their own - yes. That is negotiation. Sort of like if you go to a store and say "I'm paying 5 dollars for that vase, not a cent more." It's up to the store owner to either sell you the vase or not.
 
2013-03-20 02:11:38 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.


Read my other post, its only 3:1 for the lower middle class. The rich get less than they pay into the system, it balances itself out. This only proves that people who make $44k a year see more than they pay in, that that in total medicare pays out more than it gets in.
 
2013-03-20 02:12:06 PM
www.cartoonstock.com
 
2013-03-20 02:12:13 PM

skilbride: Well yes, that's true.  And hospitals like HCA (which don't) are setting record profits.  It's the hospitals that accept government funding and medicare that are collapsing.


Please provide some evidence for this claim.
 
2013-03-20 02:13:15 PM

skilbride: Lunchlady: Honestly? I don't have a problem if Medicare isn't self-sustaining, just like I don't give two shiats if the Post Office operates at a loss. That's the point.

Government does these things because the private sector can't. I would much rather go bankrupt as a country funding healthcare for our most in need instead of going bankrupt bombing and dieing in some shiat hole in the Middle East.

The problem with medicare though specifically is that it is the one program the government has that can cause a business that otherwise would be profitable (or at the very least, break even) to take a loss as well.  

To take your post office example, the post office exists, as do Fedex and UPS.  When you want better service, you go to FedEx and UPS.

Medicare doesn't have a version of that though, you go where-ever you want, and then that company gets stiffed on the cost of their bill.  That would the be the equivilant of saying, "Hey UPS, this guy is poor, so only charge him 37 cents on this letter even though it's going to cost you $1.... because the government said so!"


I understand your point, it is the major problem with the way that Medicare is organized. It's the same thing as protecting banks when they have unsustainable losses. Namely, we are allowing a private company to profit off the largess of society, simply because that company operates in an industry that provides a public good.

I think the solution though is to just ignore hospitals and Doctors that biatch. The problem is that we are trying to have Medicare pay the same as insurance companies when the real increases in costs are coming from enormous inflation in what hospitals are charging, they know private insurers will pay up and they expect Medicare to as well.

My biggest problem with Obamacare was that it didn't have any price controls included. I think the government shouldn't be afraid to say "This is what we're paying for procedure X, and we're not budging. You either lower your prices instead of charging $500 bucks for a prescription or you lose the largest bloc of customers you have with an insurance that always pays in one day. Take your pick"
 
2013-03-20 02:14:10 PM

Lunchlady: My biggest problem with Obamacare was that it didn't have any price controls included. I think the government shouldn't be afraid to say "This is what we're paying for procedure X, and we're not budging. You either lower your prices instead of charging $500 bucks for a prescription or you lose the largest bloc of customers you have with an insurance that always pays in one day. Take your pick"


Ah, the public option. How much we miss thee.
 
2013-03-20 02:14:19 PM

MattStafford: skullkrusher: no, there are negative consequences to cutting off the jobs program. The point, however, is to have the organic economic growth to the point where the net impact is positive.

But the very nature of the jobs program means that the growth isn't organic, it is artificial.

If the government hired a bunch of unemployed people to dig ditches and fill them back in, a bunch of other unemployed people could start making a living providing services and selling those guys goods.  But once the government stops the ditch digging program, the economy collapses.  In fact, the ditch digging program actually prevented any organic growth from happening.  The artificial growth used real resources and labor that could have been used to create actual, organic growth.


*sigh*

You see, those "other unemployed people" that started making a living providing services and selling goods to the ditch-diggers also now have money to spend, further increasing demand, so even more "other unemployed people" start getting jobs or maybe the ditch diggers start taking those new jobs because digging ditches sucks, so when the ditch digging jobs program is over there is more aggregate demand even AFTER there are no more people being employed by the government as ditch diggers than there was before the ditch digging jobs program started. Real sustainable growth.

/coconuts
 
2013-03-20 02:14:45 PM
Well guys, I've certainly been made fun of a fair amount, but I'm still waiting on some answers:

If I walk into a small town, print up a bunch of the local currency, buy a large quantity of goods, and leave town - is that town better off?

If I walk into a small town, borrow a bunch of the local currency, buy a large quantity of goods, and leave town - is that town better off?

How are those scenarios different from the government either printing currency to fund consumption or borrowing money to fund consumption?

Didn't get very many answers on that.
 
2013-03-20 02:14:53 PM

DamnYankees: skilbride: But they don't negotiate prices.  The government SETS the prices.  They say you will get this, and you can't argue.  They do it without regard to the price of the hospital pays for the services.

First of all, this isn't true inasmuch as the government doesn't set prices in a vacuum. It talks with various industry representatives.

Secondly, even if you I grant you the premise that they just set prices on their own - yes. That is negotiation. Sort of like if you go to a store and say "I'm paying 5 dollars for that vase, not a cent more." It's up to the store owner to either sell you the vase or not.


Okay, I see where you're coming from.  In that vein, yes, the government negotiates with hospitals.  They say, if you want federal funding, you will accept our medicare rates and take people who have medicare.  (And federal funding also includes any sort of research grant.) 

Sorry, I just get riled up when people post the premium graph and say, "OMG PRIVATE INSURANCE IS RIPPING US OFF" when they don't realize we pay for medicare twice.  (Once out of our payroll taxes, and again with our private insurance rates going up to cover the lost cost from the hospitals.)
 
2013-03-20 02:15:39 PM
What economics course is it that they teach to kill all old people? I must of skipped that class.
 
2013-03-20 02:16:04 PM

runin800m: Lunchlady: Government does these things because the private sector can't. I would much rather go bankrupt as a country funding healthcare for our most in need instead of going bankrupt bombing and dieing in some shiat hole in the Middle East.

Maybe we could... I don't know... not go bankrupt for either? Or is that just crazy talk?


Government isn't meant to run at a profit. We don't ask the military to pay for itself. We don't put a toll booth up on every bridge we build. These are things that every single citizen owns and benefits from. Government is a place for people to come together and pool resources to do things that we can't do alone. If some things cost more than others so be it.
 
2013-03-20 02:16:16 PM

MattStafford: Well guys, I've certainly been made fun of a fair amount, but I'm still waiting on some answers:

If I walk into a small town, print up a bunch of the local currency, buy a large quantity of goods, and leave town - is that town better off?

If I walk into a small town, borrow a bunch of the local currency, buy a large quantity of goods, and leave town - is that town better off?

How are those scenarios different from the government either printing currency to fund consumption or borrowing money to fund consumption?

Didn't get very many answers on that.


What about the eggplant/giraffe scenario? I thought that was good
 
2013-03-20 02:16:21 PM

theknuckler_33: MattStafford: skullkrusher: no, there are negative consequences to cutting off the jobs program. The point, however, is to have the organic economic growth to the point where the net impact is positive.

But the very nature of the jobs program means that the growth isn't organic, it is artificial.

If the government hired a bunch of unemployed people to dig ditches and fill them back in, a bunch of other unemployed people could start making a living providing services and selling those guys goods.  But once the government stops the ditch digging program, the economy collapses.  In fact, the ditch digging program actually prevented any organic growth from happening.  The artificial growth used real resources and labor that could have been used to create actual, organic growth.

*sigh*

You see, those "other unemployed people" that started making a living providing services and selling goods to the ditch-diggers also now have money to spend, further increasing demand, so even more "other unemployed people" start getting jobs or maybe the ditch diggers start taking those new jobs because digging ditches sucks, so when the ditch digging jobs program is over there is more aggregate demand even AFTER there are no more people being employed by the government as ditch diggers than there was before the ditch digging jobs program started. Real sustainable growth.

/coconuts


As someone who uses ditch diggers to build pyramids in the desert made out of coconuts, you leave MattStafford alone! He is protecting my industry.
 
2013-03-20 02:16:36 PM

MattStafford: How are those scenarios different from the government either printing currency to fund consumption or borrowing money to fund consumption?


Because you have absolutely no farking clue how the US monetary system works and I suspect little of even how fiat currency works.
 
2013-03-20 02:16:42 PM

skilbride: Sorry, I just get riled up when people post the premium graph and say, "OMG PRIVATE INSURANCE IS RIPPING US OFF" when they don't realize we pay for medicare twice.  (Once out of our payroll taxes, and again with our private insurance rates going up to cover the lost cost from the hospitals.)


But how is this different from any other industry? Any business which sells to large customers at a discount rate (i.e. almost every single business which has ever existed) is, by definition, subsidizing that by charging higher prices to everyone else. This doesn't strike me as a Medicare specific argument. It's just a description of the state of commerce in general.
 
2013-03-20 02:17:15 PM

MattStafford: Well guys, I've certainly been made fun of a fair amount, but I'm still waiting on some answers:

If I walk into a small town, print up a bunch of the local currency, buy a large quantity of goods, and leave town - is that town better off?

If I walk into a small town, borrow a bunch of the local currency, buy a large quantity of goods, and leave town - is that town better off?

How are those scenarios different from the government either printing currency to fund consumption or borrowing money to fund consumption?

Didn't get very many answers on that.


Your example of the military base in a town was better, also more realistic.
 
2013-03-20 02:19:01 PM
 
2013-03-20 02:19:17 PM

MattStafford: Well guys, I've certainly been made fun of a fair amount, but I'm still waiting on some answers:

If I walk into a small town, print up a bunch of the local currency, buy a large quantity of goods, and leave town - is that town better off?

If I walk into a small town, borrow a bunch of the local currency, buy a large quantity of goods, and leave town - is that town better off?

How are those scenarios different from the government either printing currency to fund consumption or borrowing money to fund consumption?

Didn't get very many answers on that.


Waah! Why won't everyone attack my straw men?!
 
2013-03-20 02:19:26 PM

runin800m: Maybe we could... I don't know... not go bankrupt for either? Or is that just crazy talk?


Then you need to stop paying way above market value in both those areas. The medical industry in your country is just as bad as the defense industry when it comes to inflating prices. Maybe even more so. An aspirin doesn't cost $18. And it's not the illegals/uninsured causing it either. They might be a small part of it, but take a look at all the "non profit" hospitals out there that are paying their top staff multiple millions of dollars in salary and bonuses. The Times had a great article that Fark linked a while back. Americans get farked over by price gouging pretty much everywhere along the line, because your system is essentially set up to not only allow it, but encourage it.
 
2013-03-20 02:19:28 PM

theknuckler_33: *sigh*

You see, those "other unemployed people" that started making a living providing services and selling goods to the ditch-diggers also now have money to spend, further increasing demand, so even more "other unemployed people" start getting jobs or maybe the ditch diggers start taking those new jobs because digging ditches sucks, so when the ditch digging jobs program is over there is more aggregate demand even AFTER there are no more people being employed by the government as ditch diggers than there was before the ditch digging jobs program started. Real sustainable growth.


Follow along:

Government hires ditch digger.  Ditch digger hires barber.  Barber buys shoes.  Shoemaker buys apple.  Apple farmer buys orange.  Continue as long as you would like.

Government fires ditch digger.

If the universe worked the way you believe it would, the orange farmer (or whoever ended that chain) would hire the ditch digger to help him at the orchard.

But, in reality, barber no longer has a customer, so the shoemaker no longer has a customer, so the apple farmer no longer has a customer, so not only does the orange farmer not need to hire the ex ditch digger, he is suffering a drop in demand as is.  In addition, since the orange farmer has the money, and the government needs to pay their creditors, his extra income is actually getting taxed.
 
2013-03-20 02:20:35 PM

DamnYankees: Lunchlady: My biggest problem with Obamacare was that it didn't have any price controls included. I think the government shouldn't be afraid to say "This is what we're paying for procedure X, and we're not budging. You either lower your prices instead of charging $500 bucks for a prescription or you lose the largest bloc of customers you have with an insurance that always pays in one day. Take your pick"

Ah, the public option. How much we miss thee.


But you don't even need a public option for that (as much as I'd love one). Medicare is still the largest insurer in the country. If they just said, "This is what we're paying, take it or leave it." Hospitals wouldn't be able to just raise prices because they know that insurance will always come in.

I'm a travel agent and if I have a group of 50 passengers from a church group going to Rome I can pretty much dictate terms because they know that group of 50 is going to Rome no matter what. If the airline wants to take their chances filling 50 seats with up to 50 other customers that's the risk they run but I can guarantee that my 50 is going to pay X amount for Y seats.

If a hospital is really in love with profits they can go ahead and deny Medicare patients, but good luck filling up those beds with non-seniors to the same level you did with old sick people.
 
2013-03-20 02:21:45 PM

skilbride: DamnYankees: skilbride: Well yes, that's true.  And hospitals like HCA (which don't) are setting record profits.  It's the hospitals that accept government funding and medicare that are collapsing.

Please provide some evidence for this claim.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/15/business/hca-giant-hospital-chain- cr eates-a-windfall-for-private-equity.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

http://www.forbes.com/sites/larryvanhorn/2011/03/11/hca-to-the-rescu e- why-for-profit-hospitals-may-save-americas-health-system/

http://www.forbes.com/sites/scottatlas/2012/12/18/lets-be-honest-med ic are-is-insolvent-and-doctors-soon-wont-accept-it/


I'm not seeing in those stories what you are. Where is the evidence that hospitals that rely on Medicare are losing money? I agree they aren't making as much money as private insurance hospitals - but that's the point. Prices are lower under Medicare, so of course profits are lower. This seems like its backing me up, not you.
 
2013-03-20 02:21:48 PM

Lunchlady: Government isn't meant to run at a profit. We don't ask the military to pay for itself. We don't put a toll booth up on every bridge we build. These are things that every single citizen owns and benefits from. Government is a place for people to come together and pool resources to do things that we can't do alone. If some things cost more than others so be it.


Yeah, exactly.  I don't understand what is so difficult about this concept.  Some things need to be paid for, so we should pay for them.  Instead, people insist that we should just borrow and pay for them instead, and that everything will be fine - if not better.  It is mind blowing.

If borrowing money to fund a Social Security esque program was beneficial to the economy, then countries in Sub Saharan Africa should find equal success in such a debt financed Social Security program.  Which is rather absurd.
 
2013-03-20 02:22:03 PM
"I was driving through central Florida a year or two ago," says Medicare's (Jonathan) Blum. "And it seemed like every billboard I saw advertised some hospital with these big shiny buildings or showed some new wing of a hospital being constructed ... So when you tell me that the hospitals say they are losing money on Medicare and shifting costs from Medicare patients to other patients, my reaction is that Central Florida is overflowing with Medicare patients and all those hospitals are expanding and advertising for Medicare patients. So you can't tell me they're losing money ... Hospitals don't lose money when they serve Medicare patients." Link

Not sure why hospitals in Florida would advertise they accept medicare if it was losing them money. Also, Mr. Brill's original Time story is behind a firewall.
 
2013-03-20 02:22:37 PM

Lunchlady: Government isn't meant to run at a profit. We don't ask the military to pay for itself. We don't put a toll booth up on every bridge we build. These are things that every single citizen owns and benefits from. Government is a place for people to come together and pool resources to do things that we can't do alone. If some things cost more than others so be it.


Government isn't meant to run a profit but it is meant to pay for itself. We are the government, we have to pay for what we/the government does. We don't put a toll booth on every bridge we build, but I know of several bridges with toll booths (roads as well) because you do in fact have to pay for them somehow. Fortunately, most are paid for with taxes we pay when buying gasoline or other taxes that the federal/state government levy. These are things that every single citizen owns and benefits from but we still have to pay for them. That's the pooling resources part. If some things cost more, that's fine, but not if they cost more than we are pooling together. The fact that the government is doing it doesn't magically make it free.
 
2013-03-20 02:22:38 PM

MattStafford: Well guys, I've certainly been made fun of a fair amount, but I'm still waiting on some answers:

If I walk into a small town, print up a bunch of the local currency, buy a large quantity of goods, and leave town - is that town better off?

If I walk into a small town, borrow a bunch of the local currency, buy a large quantity of goods, and leave town - is that town better off?

How are those scenarios different from the government either printing currency to fund consumption or borrowing money to fund consumption?

Didn't get very many answers on that.


Better analogy:

Suppose you're on a desert island with someone else, and there are coconuts and fish. The other guy collects coconuts, and you want some of those coconuts. What do you do? Clearly, you catch fish to trade with the guy for coconuts. You don't try to spend money or consume his coconuts without something to trade. Yet that is exactly what you are suggesting. If you are going to consume something, you need to produce something to trade for thing. It isn't farking rocket science. Link
 
2013-03-20 02:24:12 PM

DamnYankees: skilbride: Sorry, I just get riled up when people post the premium graph and say, "OMG PRIVATE INSURANCE IS RIPPING US OFF" when they don't realize we pay for medicare twice.  (Once out of our payroll taxes, and again with our private insurance rates going up to cover the lost cost from the hospitals.)

But how is this different from any other industry? Any business which sells to large customers at a discount rate (i.e. almost every single business which has ever existed) is, by definition, subsidizing that by charging higher prices to everyone else. This doesn't strike me as a Medicare specific argument. It's just a description of the state of commerce in general.


Yes - but any other company can refuse a deal.  If it's no longer profitable for them to sell their cookies at a discount, they can say no - but still sell milk and butter at a discounted rate.  With medicare, you will have to continue selling cookies at a discounted rate even if it bankrupts you to also sell the milk and butter.

I think, at the base, we both agree that medicare and how we look at healthcare in this country needs to be retooled.  I made a significant amount a year (enough to cringe when I see how much goes out of my taxes because I don't own a house to offset it or have kids) and I think that at base everyone's complaint about government right now is they are throwing money at problems without critically thinking through them.  

Why don't you take the VA and expand their hospitals to take medicare and make it entirely internal to the government?
 
2013-03-20 02:25:05 PM

skilbride: With medicare, you will have to continue selling cookies at a discounted rate even if it bankrupts you to also sell the milk and butter.


This is not true. Hospitals don't have to take Medicare. I don't know what you're talking about.
 
2013-03-20 02:27:29 PM

MyKingdomForYourHorse: Because you have absolutely no farking clue how the US monetary system works and I suspect little of even how fiat currency works.


Care to explain it?

Perhaps this would be a better analogy:

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

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

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

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

I fail to see how B can be beneficial to a country, whereas A would be harmful.  So please explain the difference?
 
2013-03-20 02:28:09 PM
NateGrey:

Better analogy:

Suppose you're on a desert island with someone else, and there are coconuts and fish. The other guy collects coconuts, and you want some of those coconuts. What do you do? Clearly, you catch fish to trade with the guy for coconuts. You don't try to spend money or consume his coconuts without something to trade. Yet that is exactly what you are suggesting. If you are going to consume something, you need to produce something to trade for thing. It isn't farking rocket science. Link


If I'm a true capitalist, I kill the other guy so I can have a monopoly on coconuts without having to pay a disproportionate share of my fish to support his lazy coconut gathering ways. Doing so maximizes the benefit for me (not having to share potentially scarce resources AND getting a third type of food (human meat) AND giving me access to his bones for use as tools to improve my own fishing/coconut gathering efficiency) without being constrained by arbitrary out of market forces like a government or code of ethics. QED, libs.
 
2013-03-20 02:29:26 PM

DamnYankees: skilbride: With medicare, you will have to continue selling cookies at a discounted rate even if it bankrupts you to also sell the milk and butter.

This is not true. Hospitals don't have to take Medicare. I don't know what you're talking about.


I particularly like how you take one sentence out of what I said, twist it around to make a point that I already admitted to - twice, in that hospitals can reject federal funding in all forms and choose not to take medicare.  But if you continue harping on the same point instead of having meaningful discourse with me, I'm just going to have to ignore you.  Good day.
 
2013-03-20 02:29:45 PM

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


Doesn't he have a GED in economics?

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


Look, I don't have a GED in economics, but I understand that the concept of money is to allow for transactions between inherently dissimilar goods/services.  How much of my time setting up routers is worth the number of chickens you want to give me?  Beats the hell out of me, but I could probably get $100/billable hour for my services for a small business.  As a teacher, I can get $60 per billable hour.  I then take those dollars and buy chickens from the supermarket, which have value added because they are killed, cleaned feathered and chopped up, all of which I don't have to do.

Now, the amount of money available in an economy needs to be roughly equivalent to the agreed upon worth of all the goods and services available in that economy.  So, when you rant about "printing money", you clearly don't understand why money gets printed, how much should be printed or what the consequences should be for printing too much or not enough money.

So take your Ron Paul rants to people who are as gormless as you are, and you will be hailed as a really smrt person.
 
2013-03-20 02:31:05 PM

MattStafford: You are suggesting that a government jobs program is going to create real and sustainable growth. I'm arguing that the growth created by a government jobs program will disappear once the program is finished.


you're suggesting that based on nothing except your own desire for it to be so

MattStafford: And guess what - I have real world examples. Think about any town where a huge employer is the military, either a military base or a MIC company. That is essentially a jobs program. And it creates a whole ton of other jobs in the area. What happens when that jobs program ends? Are you willing to make the argument that if you spent more and more money on that military base or bought more and more goods from that MIC plant, eventually the surrounding economy would be self sustaining and not suffer as a result from the base/plant closing?


this is a terrible real world example. That's an example of a local economy which is based on government spending. Not one that uses government spending to get its private sector employment growing again.
 
2013-03-20 02:31:17 PM

runin800m: Lunchlady: Government isn't meant to run at a profit. We don't ask the military to pay for itself. We don't put a toll booth up on every bridge we build. These are things that every single citizen owns and benefits from. Government is a place for people to come together and pool resources to do things that we can't do alone. If some things cost more than others so be it.

Government isn't meant to run a profit but it is meant to pay for itself. We are the government, we have to pay for what we/the government does. We don't put a toll booth on every bridge we build, but I know of several bridges with toll booths (roads as well) because you do in fact have to pay for them somehow. Fortunately, most are paid for with taxes we pay when buying gasoline or other taxes that the federal/state government levy. These are things that every single citizen owns and benefits from but we still have to pay for them. That's the pooling resources part. If some things cost more, that's fine, but not if they cost more than we are pooling together. The fact that the government is doing it doesn't magically make it free.


I agree completely.

If we want to be financially sustainable we either need to raise taxes or significantly cut services. Since no one wants the latter option (at least not when it comes to a vote, everyone is for it when it doesn't affect them) we need to raise taxes. That would be just fine with me.
 
2013-03-20 02:31:20 PM

NateGrey: MattStafford: Well guys, I've certainly been made fun of a fair amount, but I'm still waiting on some answers:

If I walk into a small town, print up a bunch of the local currency, buy a large quantity of goods, and leave town - is that town better off?

If I walk into a small town, borrow a bunch of the local currency, buy a large quantity of goods, and leave town - is that town better off?

How are those scenarios different from the government either printing currency to fund consumption or borrowing money to fund consumption?

Didn't get very many answers on that.

Better analogy:

Suppose you're on a desert island with someone else, and there are coconuts and fish. The other guy collects coconuts, and you want some of those coconuts. What do you do? Clearly, you catch fish to trade with the guy for coconuts. You don't try to spend money or consume his coconuts without something to trade. Yet that is exactly what you are suggesting. If you are going to consume something, you need to produce something to trade for thing. It isn't farking rocket science. Link


And, more realistically - as observed in the real world - in such a situation those two people would just pool their resources and not try to establish a barter economy.
 
2013-03-20 02:31:32 PM

skilbride: I particularly like how you take one sentence out of what I said, twist it around to make a point that I already admitted to - twice, in that hospitals can reject federal funding in all forms and choose not to take medicare.  But if you continue harping on the same point instead of having meaningful discourse with me, I'm just going to have to ignore you.  Good day.


You can complain I'm ignoring you, but I'm pointing out your inconsistency. Yes, you mention hospitals don't need to take Medicare. But that undermines your whole point to begin with. So what am I supposed to do with that other than re-pointing that out?
 
2013-03-20 02:32:51 PM

MattStafford: I convince the Federal Reserve to print me up a bunch of currency.


Your analogies are horrendous. You change them to fit your ridiculous views.

WHY would the Federal Reserve print one person a bunch of money? In exchange for goods or services? Your whole thing falls apart.
 
2013-03-20 02:34:15 PM

MattStafford: theknuckler_33: *sigh*

You see, those "other unemployed people" that started making a living providing services and selling goods to the ditch-diggers also now have money to spend, further increasing demand, so even more "other unemployed people" start getting jobs or maybe the ditch diggers start taking those new jobs because digging ditches sucks, so when the ditch digging jobs program is over there is more aggregate demand even AFTER there are no more people being employed by the government as ditch diggers than there was before the ditch digging jobs program started. Real sustainable growth.

Follow along:

Government hires ditch digger.  Ditch digger hires barber.  Barber buys shoes.  Shoemaker buys apple.  Apple farmer buys orange.  Continue as long as you would like.

Government fires ditch digger.

If the universe worked the way you believe it would, the orange farmer (or whoever ended that chain) would hire the ditch digger to help him at the orchard.


In your own words:

MattStafford: If the government hired a bunch of unemployed people to dig ditches and fill them back in, a bunch of other unemployed people could start making a living providing services and selling those guys goods.  But once the government stops the ditch digging program, the economy collapses.  In fact, the ditch digging program actually prevented any organic growth from happening.  The artificial growth used real resources and labor that could have been used to create actual, organic growth.


If the government hiring a bunch of unemployed people to dig ditches can result in a bunch of other unemployed people getting jobs and earning money, why can't those other people who got jobs and earning money result in still other new jobs becoming available for even other unemployed people or, say, the ditch diggers? The answer, of course, is that it can and does.  This is the positive feedback loop.
.
 
2013-03-20 02:34:41 PM

DamnYankees: skilbride: I particularly like how you take one sentence out of what I said, twist it around to make a point that I already admitted to - twice, in that hospitals can reject federal funding in all forms and choose not to take medicare.  But if you continue harping on the same point instead of having meaningful discourse with me, I'm just going to have to ignore you.  Good day.

You can complain I'm ignoring you, but I'm pointing out your inconsistency. Yes, you mention hospitals don't need to take Medicare. But that undermines your whole point to begin with. So what am I supposed to do with that other than re-pointing that out?


We're not talking about hospitals that choose not to take medicare here.  We're talking about the hospitals that do (for whatever reason) and how medicare works within them.  But keep pointing out the fact that they could choose not to take medicare, which distracts from the point that medicare is necessary in our society and needs to be reformed.

In fact, fine, all hospitals should choose not to take medicare.  Then the government would be forced to build their own.  Problem solved.
 
2013-03-20 02:34:45 PM

NateGrey: MattStafford: I convince the Federal Reserve to print me up a bunch of currency.

Your analogies are horrendous. You change them to fit your ridiculous views.

WHY would the Federal Reserve print one person a bunch of money? In exchange for goods or services? Your whole thing falls apart.


the unlikelihood of his scenarios is not what makes his argument flawed.
 
2013-03-20 02:35:04 PM

NeverDrunk23: Sounds like someone moved from a GED in law to a GED in economics. Switch the names and the post style match up.


El-oh-el, chip.
 
2013-03-20 02:36:30 PM

maddogdelta: Now, the amount of money available in an economy needs to be roughly equivalent to the agreed upon worth of all the goods and services available in that economy. So, when you rant about "printing money", you clearly don't understand why money gets printed, how much should be printed or what the consequences should be for printing too much or not enough money.


You seem to have such a good understanding of this, but then completely miss the point.  If money acts an intermediary between two dissimilar goods, such as router setup and chickens, then the value of money should reflect the real value of goods.  If, instead of setting up routers, you simply printed that money, it would cause a distortion in the economy.

If I print up money, and have you set up my router, and in return you expect to be able to buy chickens from me - what happens when I didn't farm any chickens?
 
2013-03-20 02:36:56 PM

Lunchlady: I agree completely.

If we want to be financially sustainable we either need to raise taxes or significantly cut services. Since no one wants the latter option (at least not when it comes to a vote, everyone is for it when it doesn't affect them) we need to raise taxes. That would be just fine with me.


Then I apologize, you weren't saying what I thought you were saying.

Unfortunately, no one wants to do the former either because in order to raise them enough to matter, even combined with spending cuts, the tax increases would hit everyone and not just the super rich 99% or whatever that people here like to imagine are the only ones who need to pay more. This is why I think we are in a crisis and don't realize it. Everyone is for cutting services as long as it doesn't affect them and everyone is for raising taxes as long as it's not on them. Everything is a sacred cow.
 
2013-03-20 02:37:36 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.


Relative to what? A cocktail party for serial killers?

Jennifer Rubin
Charles Krauthammer
Marc Thiessen
Charles Lane
Jackson Diehl
George Will
 The only place I can think of that employs more neocons and sociopaths is Fox News
 
2013-03-20 02:38:32 PM

Lunchlady: runin800m: Lunchlady: Government isn't meant to run at a profit. We don't ask the military to pay for itself. We don't put a toll booth up on every bridge we build. These are things that every single citizen owns and benefits from. Government is a place for people to come together and pool resources to do things that we can't do alone. If some things cost more than others so be it.

Government isn't meant to run a profit but it is meant to pay for itself. We are the government, we have to pay for what we/the government does. We don't put a toll booth on every bridge we build, but I know of several bridges with toll booths (roads as well) because you do in fact have to pay for them somehow. Fortunately, most are paid for with taxes we pay when buying gasoline or other taxes that the federal/state government levy. These are things that every single citizen owns and benefits from but we still have to pay for them. That's the pooling resources part. If some things cost more, that's fine, but not if they cost more than we are pooling together. The fact that the government is doing it doesn't magically make it free.

I agree completely.

If we want to be financially sustainable we either need to raise taxes or significantly cut services. Since no one wants the latter option (at least not when it comes to a vote, everyone is for it when it doesn't affect them) we need to raise taxes. That would be just fine with me.


In that vein though there's a difference between operating at a loss and straight up losing money.

Some things government does is because no one else can do it profitably but the job still needs to get done in a functioning society. I don't want or expect the Post Office to make money and I don't expect Medicare to be 100% self-sufficient. The government has a benefit in that they can pretty much dictate terms because they will always be the largest consumer. The problem comes when we expect it to operate by the same rules as a private company. fark that shiat. If Aetna wanted the same clients as Medicare then they take the same risks the government does. But since they don't we get to use the bully pulpit to dictate terms.

We try to make government please both sides. Either we use the immense power of the government to negotiate rates and keep costs low at the expense of private profits (banks, health insurance, Doctors, colleges, etc) or we raise taxes so it competes on a level playing field. We're too chicken to do either.
 
2013-03-20 02:39:03 PM

skullkrusher: this is a terrible real world example. That's an example of a local economy which is based on government spending. Not one that uses government spending to get its private sector employment growing again.


So if there was a down and out town, and the government put a military base there, would you expect that town to grow to the point where removing the military base would not destroy the economy of the town?
 
2013-03-20 02:39:42 PM
You're going to need better facts then those to convenience me old Americans don't deserve assistance from Medicare. Heck, I'm a Millennial and know I won't get any, but I still don't want to cut my grandparents or their friends and neighbors off of it. They've lived a long life, let them rest in peace.
 
2013-03-20 02:40:31 PM

skullkrusher: NateGrey: MattStafford: I convince the Federal Reserve to print me up a bunch of currency.

Your analogies are horrendous. You change them to fit your ridiculous views.

WHY would the Federal Reserve print one person a bunch of money? In exchange for goods or services? Your whole thing falls apart.

the unlikelihood of his scenarios is not what makes his argument flawed.


Oh geez, as if there wasnt enough derp in this thread.

Of course thats not the only flaw. That stood out in each of his scenarios.
 
2013-03-20 02:41:35 PM

NateGrey: Your analogies are horrendous. You change them to fit your ridiculous views.

WHY would the Federal Reserve print one person a bunch of money? In exchange for goods or services? Your whole thing falls apart.


skullkrusher: the unlikelihood of his scenarios is not what makes his argument flawed.


Exactly.  You can't simply say - "oh, that doesn't make sense it would never happen" - you need to explain why the analogy doesn't make sense and wouldn't work.  Just saying it would never happen doesn't mean there isn't a point successfully made.
 
2013-03-20 02:41:57 PM

Ctrl-Alt-Del: 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.

Relative to what? A cocktail party for serial killers?

Jennifer Rubin
Charles Krauthammer
Marc Thiessen
Charles Lane
Jackson Diehl
George Will
 The only place I can think of that employs more neocons and sociopaths is Fox News


Cmon, we all know WaPo is sliding slowly into the abyss, but I am sure you could think of at least a.... googleplex of sites that are worse.  Here is a start:

NewsMax
NewsBusters
Stormfront
Breitbart
TheDailyCaller
WorldNetDaily
AmericanThinker
Drudge
Free Republic
NRO
TownHall
CSN
TheBlaze
PajamasMedia
Infowars

Hyperbolic comment is hyperbolic.
 
2013-03-20 02:43:04 PM

skilbride: We're not talking about hospitals that choose not to take medicare here.  We're talking about the hospitals that do (for whatever reason) and how medicare works within them.  But keep pointing out the fact that they could choose not to take medicare, which distracts from the point that medicare is necessary in our society and needs to be reformed.

In fact, fine, all hospitals should choose not to take medicare.  Then the government would be forced to build their own.  Problem solved.


It'd be more efficient to just raise the prices Medicare pays.
 
MFK
2013-03-20 02:43:22 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?


because Glenn Kessler is a partisan hack who will bend over backwards to skew the "facts" to suit the Republican talking point du jour.
 
2013-03-20 02:44:08 PM

MattStafford: NateGrey: Your analogies are horrendous. You change them to fit your ridiculous views.

WHY would the Federal Reserve print one person a bunch of money? In exchange for goods or services? Your whole thing falls apart.

skullkrusher: the unlikelihood of his scenarios is not what makes his argument flawed.

Exactly.  You can't simply say - "oh, that doesn't make sense it would never happen" - you need to explain why the analogy doesn't make sense and wouldn't work.  Just saying it would never happen doesn't mean there isn't a point successfully made.


Why would you admittedly use bad analogies? Seems trollish.
 
2013-03-20 02:44:30 PM

MattStafford: Care to explain it?


Two things at hand in your example here actually, the little understanding of how money comes into being and then gets circulated into the economy and also microecon and its effects at the macro level.

Here, its pretty lengthy but its a good start. I suspect you won't actually read it but it would go lengths towards putting down those stupid strawmen examples you hoist up.
 
2013-03-20 02:44:36 PM

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


...You don't have a clue how anything works, do you?
 
2013-03-20 02:44:49 PM

Lando Lincoln: Lunchlady: Honestly? I don't have a problem if Medicare isn't self-sustaining, just like I don't give two shiats if the Post Office operates at a loss. That's the point.

Government does these things because the private sector can't. I would much rather go bankrupt as a country funding healthcare for our most in need instead of going bankrupt bombing and dieing in some shiat hole in the Middle East.

I'd like to find out who the first guy was that decided that the idea "government should be run like a business" was a good one and either cockpunch him or piss on his grave.


No kidding.
 
2013-03-20 02:45:00 PM

HellRaisingHoosier: You're going to need better facts then those to convenience me old Americans don't deserve assistance from Medicare. Heck, I'm a Millennial and know I won't get any, but I still don't want to cut my grandparents or their friends and neighbors off of it. They've lived a long life, let them rest in peace.


I don't think we need to cut them off either but if we think it's that important then we need to be willing to pay what it costs to have it.
 
2013-03-20 02:45:12 PM

NateGrey: MattStafford: I convince the Federal Reserve to print me up a bunch of currency.

Your analogies are horrendous. You change them to fit your ridiculous views.

WHY would the Federal Reserve print one person a bunch of money? In exchange for goods or services? Your whole thing falls apart.


He had an example before whereby he, as the government, printed money to employ the entire population of MattStaffordLand, but they only made goods that he, the government, could use. So the people had the borrowed money he paid them with, but couldn't buy anything because all they made were government goods. So clothing, food and shelter didn't exist. And he thought this (a) was a valid example and (b) proved some sort of point.

I get why people want to refute what he says (it's often both wrong and ridiculous), but again, I strongly recommend using the Ignore on him. It's definitely increased my thread enjoyment, and resulted in less blunt force trama due to facepalms.
 
2013-03-20 02:45:19 PM
Meanwhile, Fark's profits continue their downward trend.

Yes, surely the solution is to keep posting more headlines like this.
 
2013-03-20 02:46:44 PM

MattStafford: Exactly. You can't simply say - "oh, that doesn't make sense it would never happen" - you need to explain why the analogy doesn't make sense and wouldn't work. Just saying it would never happen doesn't mean there isn't a point successfully made.


lol are you serious? Your schtick is to setup terrible analogies and then get called out, then change the original premise to suit your needs. Rinse and repeat. I posted your famous one up thread. What happened to that? You want it explained why your analogy doesnt make sense? Oh lord.
 
2013-03-20 02:47:27 PM
TheMysticS

If one of the brighter mods is working, your post will probably disappear. See, it's OK for the right-wingers to troll us, but pointing out the hypocrisy is "trolling" him.
 
2013-03-20 02:47:32 PM

MattStafford: skullkrusher: this is a terrible real world example. That's an example of a local economy which is based on government spending. Not one that uses government spending to get its private sector employment growing again.

So if there was a down and out town, and the government put a military base there, would you expect that town to grow to the point where removing the military base would not destroy the economy of the town?


potentially, but that's not what we're talking about. We're not talking about resurrecting a dead town. We're talking about stimulating an under-the-weather national economy.

It's like gold mining towns - the sprung up and thrived but then when the gold was gone, they died. Those towns relied on the gold mine as the primary employer and source of revenue.
 
2013-03-20 02:49:10 PM

MattStafford: If I walk into a small town, print up a bunch of the local currency, buy a large quantity of goods, and leave town - is that town better off?


Yes, it certainly could be. Your infusion of dollars would increase inflation, sure, but the resulting economic activity may inspire consumer spending and get money moving around more, getting people to create more products and services, which is what a farking economy is. Economics is a balancing act and inflation and economic growth are on opposite ends of that teetor-totter.

This is basic economic principles here. You should go to school or read a goddamn book once in a while.
 
2013-03-20 02:49:14 PM

theknuckler_33: If the government hiring a bunch of unemployed people to dig ditches can result in a bunch of other unemployed people getting jobs and earning money, why can't those other people who got jobs and earning money result in still other new jobs becoming available for even other unemployed people or, say, the ditch diggers? The answer, of course, is that it can and does. This is the positive feedback loop.


You are suggesting that the government hires a ditch digger.  The ditch digger then hires a shoemaker.  Then the ditch digger quits digging, and is hired by the shoemaker.  Where is the demand coming from to keep the shoemaker in business?  And who is paying taxes here?
 
2013-03-20 02:50:13 PM

MattStafford: then the value of money should reflect the real value of goods.


What is this mystical "real value" you speak of?  Can you define it?

And who prints the money?  Are you suggesting a "gold standard" where the only labor/goods considered of real value in an economy is the mining and refining of an almost useless yellow colored metal?
Or should there be some kind of agreement between members of a society...say some kind of representational entity where representatives of the members of that society might hire people who are well versed in these issues could oversee them, and decide based on the amount of goods and services the entire workforce supplies?
 
2013-03-20 02:50:14 PM

NateGrey: Oh geez, as if there wasnt enough derp in this thread.


there wasn't. That's why I am glad you showed up.

NateGrey: Of course thats not the only flaw. That stood out in each of his scenarios.


oftentimes simplification is a tool for explaining an idea. The act of simplification, even to absurd levels, is not the issue. Whether there are millions of people spending the money from the fed or they gave it all to one guy to spend doesn't really make a difference. Why don't you attack his easily assailable arguments rather than going for the cozy feel of joining a pile-on without adding anything of merit?

I have a feeling I know why.
 
2013-03-20 02:52:00 PM

MattStafford: So if there was a down and out town, and the government put a military base there, would you expect that town to grow to the point where removing the military base would not destroy the economy of the town?


See, now thats a better example and incidentally question. Of course the chances are high that it could destroy the town or at least shrink to pre base levels economically unless that is some other cottage industry planted roots while the base was there and established itself in which case the blow would be softend.

But I fail to see what point you are trying to make here, are you comparing social security as a direct comparison to military spending? Because that's just being purposely obtuse on the benefits of not having Grandma eat cat food.
 
2013-03-20 02:53:35 PM

MyKingdomForYourHorse: MattStafford: Care to explain it?

Two things at hand in your example here actually, the little understanding of how money comes into being and then gets circulated into the economy and also microecon and its effects at the macro level.

Here, its pretty lengthy but its a good start. I suspect you won't actually read it but it would go lengths towards putting down those stupid strawmen examples you hoist up.


So the answer is, no, you can't explain it?

And MMT is bullshiat.  If you would like me to explain, I gladly will.
 
2013-03-20 02:54:07 PM

DamnYankees: skilbride: I particularly like how you take one sentence out of what I said, twist it around to make a point that I already admitted to - twice, in that hospitals can reject federal funding in all forms and choose not to take medicare.  But if you continue harping on the same point instead of having meaningful discourse with me, I'm just going to have to ignore you.  Good day.

You can complain I'm ignoring you, but I'm pointing out your inconsistency. Yes, you mention hospitals don't need to take Medicare. But that undermines your whole point to begin with. So what am I supposed to do with that other than re-pointing that out?


Its amusing he claims that you aren't having meaningful discourse with him when he admitted in his starting thread that he is 'pretty much only here because I think the fark politics threads have become a libtank circle.'

Sometimes the best farky for trolls is them admitting that they aren't here for any honest discussion.
 
2013-03-20 02:54:19 PM

LoneWolf343: MattStafford: A: I live outside of a small town. I convince the local central bank to print me up a bunch of currency. I go into the small town and buy a bunch of things. I do not produce anything that anyone in the small town wants.

...You don't have a clue how anything works, do you?


Please explain to me how those two scenarios are different.
 
2013-03-20 02:54:31 PM

MattStafford: theknuckler_33: If the government hiring a bunch of unemployed people to dig ditches can result in a bunch of other unemployed people getting jobs and earning money, why can't those other people who got jobs and earning money result in still other new jobs becoming available for even other unemployed people or, say, the ditch diggers? The answer, of course, is that it can and does. This is the positive feedback loop.

You are suggesting that the government hires a ditch digger.  The ditch digger then hires a shoemaker.  Then the ditch digger quits digging, and is hired by the shoemaker.  Where is the demand coming from to keep the shoemaker in business?  And who is paying taxes here?


Are you saying the ditch-digger-turned-shoemaker's-employee no longer needs shoes? How does the demand for shoes disappear because one ditch-digger changes jobs?
 
2013-03-20 02:55:23 PM

NateGrey: lol are you serious? Your schtick is to setup terrible analogies and then get called out, then change the original premise to suit your needs. Rinse and repeat. I posted your famous one up thread. What happened to that? You want it explained why your analogy doesnt make sense? Oh lord.


Sure, actually, if you want to explain how to create a functioning economy between two people without them both producing and trading goods, I would love to hear it.
 
2013-03-20 02:55:27 PM

MattStafford: theknuckler_33: If the government hiring a bunch of unemployed people to dig ditches can result in a bunch of other unemployed people getting jobs and earning money, why can't those other people who got jobs and earning money result in still other new jobs becoming available for even other unemployed people or, say, the ditch diggers? The answer, of course, is that it can and does. This is the positive feedback loop.

You are suggesting that the government hires a ditch digger.  The ditch digger then hires a shoemaker.  Then the ditch digger quits digging, and is hired by the shoemaker.  Where is the demand coming from to keep the shoemaker in business?  And who is paying taxes here?


You admitted that the government hiring a bunch of people will have the result of other unemployed people getting jobs to meet the demand of the ditch diggers and now you are saying that those 'other unemployed people' who got jobs to meet the demand of the ditch diggers do not themselves create more demand?

WTF dude?
 
2013-03-20 02:56:09 PM

coeyagi: Ctrl-Alt-Del: 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.

Relative to what? A cocktail party for serial killers?

Jennifer Rubin
Charles Krauthammer
Marc Thiessen
Charles Lane
Jackson Diehl
George Will
 The only place I can think of that employs more neocons and sociopaths is Fox News

Cmon, we all know WaPo is sliding slowly into the abyss, but I am sure you could think of at least a.... googleplex of sites that are worse.  Here is a start:

NewsMax
NewsBusters
Stormfront
Breitbart
TheDailyCaller
WorldNetDaily
AmericanThinker
Drudge
Free Republic
NRO
TownHall
CSN
TheBlaze
PajamasMedia
Infowars

Hyperbolic comment is hyperbolic.


Shush, you. Let me have my moment of teary eyed glory.
 
2013-03-20 02:57:51 PM

Ctrl-Alt-Del: coeyagi: Ctrl-Alt-Del: 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.

Relative to what? A cocktail party for serial killers?

Jennifer Rubin
Charles Krauthammer
Marc Thiessen
Charles Lane
Jackson Diehl
George Will
 The only place I can think of that employs more neocons and sociopaths is Fox News

Cmon, we all know WaPo is sliding slowly into the abyss, but I am sure you could think of at least a.... googleplex of sites that are worse.  Here is a start:

NewsMax
NewsBusters
Stormfront
Breitbart
TheDailyCaller
WorldNetDaily
AmericanThinker
Drudge
Free Republic
NRO
TownHall
CSN
TheBlaze
PajamasMedia
Infowars

Hyperbolic comment is hyperbolic.

Shush, you. Let me have my moment of teary eyed glory.


WaPo isn't a rag dudes, sorry.
 
2013-03-20 02:59:46 PM

skullkrusher: potentially, but that's not what we're talking about. We're not talking about resurrecting a dead town. We're talking about stimulating an under-the-weather national economy.

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


This might come as a shock, but we have been resurrecting a dead town for the past thirty years.  Europe recovered from WWII.  East Asia liberalized.  Our position as the dominant economic player was being threatened.  Instead of understanding that, and living within our means, we doubled down and massively increased our spending.  Instead of watching that gold town disappear, we replaced it with Wall Street.  We replaced it with the Military Industrial Complex.  We replaced it with Real Estate.  We aren't fixing an under the weather national economy, we are (will be) experiencing the death throes of an artificial economy kept alive for far too long.
 
2013-03-20 03:00:17 PM

MattStafford: MyKingdomForYourHorse: MattStafford: Care to explain it?

Two things at hand in your example here actually, the little understanding of how money comes into being and then gets circulated into the economy and also microecon and its effects at the macro level.

Here, its pretty lengthy but its a good start. I suspect you won't actually read it but it would go lengths towards putting down those stupid strawmen examples you hoist up.

So the answer is, no, you can't explain it?

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


It's true, he can. He has a great analogy that makes it really easy to understand, too.
 
2013-03-20 03:00:19 PM
skullkrusher:

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

Some of 'em upped and died (OK, a lot of them upped and died) but others successfully transitioned to other forms of economy.  See Telluride Colorado as the textbook example of this.
 
2013-03-20 03:00:58 PM

MattStafford: skullkrusher: potentially, but that's not what we're talking about. We're not talking about resurrecting a dead town. We're talking about stimulating an under-the-weather national economy.

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

This might come as a shock, but we have been resurrecting a dead town for the past thirty years.  Europe recovered from WWII.  East Asia liberalized.  Our position as the dominant economic player was being threatened.  Instead of understanding that, and living within our means, we doubled down and massively increased our spending.  Instead of watching that gold town disappear, we replaced it with Wall Street.  We replaced it with the Military Industrial Complex.  We replaced it with Real Estate.  We aren't fixing an under the weather national economy, we are (will be) experiencing the death throes of an artificial economy kept alive for far too long.


nothing you said here has anything to do with your apparent need to misunderstand the stimulative effects of deficit spending
 
2013-03-20 03:01:11 PM
They're "getting" $3 in services for the $1 they put in, but left unexamined is how much of the services are either unnecessary or just plain fraudulent.

Medicare never would have gotten off the ground if Congress hadn't agreed to wink and nod when providers padded their bills a bit. Which was sort-of tolerable for the budget for the first couple of decades when most of the money went to large-scale providers like hospitals, but now a lot of what used to be handled by hospitals is done by smaller outfits...and so any crook who knows how to bill his bullshiat with the correct codes can rent a storefront for a few months, bill Medicare for whatever they can get away with, and then bail before the heat comes.
 
2013-03-20 03:01:26 PM

Lando Lincoln: Yes, it certainly could be. Your infusion of dollars would increase inflation, sure, but the resulting economic activity may inspire consumer spending and get money moving around more, getting people to create more products and services, which is what a farking economy is. Economics is a balancing act and inflation and economic growth are on opposite ends of that teetor-totter.

This is basic economic principles here. You should go to school or read a goddamn book once in a while.


Maybe you should stop reading books and going to school, and start thinking for yourself once in a while.
 
2013-03-20 03:01:33 PM

NateGrey: lol are you serious? Your schtick is to setup terrible analogies and then get called out, then change the original premise to suit your needs. Rinse and repeat. I posted your famous one up thread. What happened to that? You want it explained why your analogy doesnt make sense? Oh lord.


I know why it makes sense, I think I figured this guy out

cf.badassdigest.com
 
2013-03-20 03:02:15 PM

Rent Party: skullkrusher:

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

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


right - I couldn't think of an example that kept on but that works. If your economy is based on a single employer or source of revenues and that employer or revenue goes away, of course the economy will crumble. Spending a few hundred billion or several trillion to stimulate the economy in the short term is in no way analogous to that.
 
2013-03-20 03:02:35 PM

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


Now that's comedy.
 
2013-03-20 03:03:20 PM

MyKingdomForYourHorse: See, now thats a better example and incidentally question. Of course the chances are high that it could destroy the town or at least shrink to pre base levels economically unless that is some other cottage industry planted roots while the base was there and established itself in which case the blow would be softend.

But I fail to see what point you are trying to make here, are you comparing social security as a direct comparison to military spending? Because that's just being purposely obtuse on the benefits of not having Grandma eat cat food.


Does it matter if we put a military base there or a retirement home there?  No, the economic affect will be the same.  The only difference will be who benefits (and I agree, it should be the elderly), but that does not change the economic smarts of the program or the long term sustainability of it.
 
2013-03-20 03:04:34 PM

MattStafford: Maybe you should stop reading books and going to school, and start thinking for yourself once in a while.


Okay, fine, I've been trolled. It hasn't been the first time and it won't be the last. I don't really care.
 
2013-03-20 03:04:59 PM

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


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

I am going to hire you to build a car, and then I'm going to sell you that car? What do I get out of the deal?
 
2013-03-20 03:05:51 PM

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


I'm all ears on this one, this outta be rich
 
2013-03-20 03:05:55 PM

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


Until someone explains to me why it's wrong, I'll keep using it.  And, actually, it does make MMT's failings rather straightforward.
 
2013-03-20 03:08:21 PM

MattStafford: Does it matter if we put a military base there or a retirement home there? No, the economic affect will be the same. The only difference will be who benefits (and I agree, it should be the elderly), but that does not change the economic smarts of the program or the long term sustainability of it.


Of course it changes the economic effect. You are being willfully blind of how money circulates in an economy and instead seem to think that once it gets spent on Grandma or GI Joe, that it magically vanishes into thin air and has zero effect on demand within Grandma and Joe's microecon bubble.
 
2013-03-20 03:08:54 PM

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

Now that's comedy.


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

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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

James F. Campbell: TheMysticS

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


Shhh...

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

skullkrusher: I have a feeling I know why.


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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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


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

Now don't you look silly.

/coconuts
 
2013-03-20 03:13:04 PM

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

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


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

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

This is why we can't have nice things


I stared into the abyss and the abyss stared back

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


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

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

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

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


already have. Now I'm gonna tap out.

*tap*
 
2013-03-20 03:16:21 PM

MattStafford: Help me understand the stimulative effects of deficit spending


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

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


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

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

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

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

skullkrusher: Rent Party: skullkrusher:

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

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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

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

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


Link:

Link:

Link:
 
2013-03-20 03:19:48 PM

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

Now don't you look silly.


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

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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


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

www.wearysloth.com

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

*tap*


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

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

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


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

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

Now don't you look silly.

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


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

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

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


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

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

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

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

Link:

Link:

Link:


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

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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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


Let's try this on for size.

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

Ok so far?  Good.

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

Ok so far?  Good.

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

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

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

Lesson over.
 
2013-03-20 03:28:13 PM

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


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

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

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

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

Link:

Link:

Link:

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

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


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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

Link:

Link:

Link:

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

The hell you say


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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

Link:

Link:

Link:

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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


Then by all means, enlighten me.

What part did I get wrong?

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

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

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


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

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

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


Umm, that doesn't make a lot sense.
 
2013-03-20 03:38:55 PM

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

Umm, that doesn't make a lot sense.


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


MattStafford: What part did I get wrong?


All of it
 
2013-03-20 03:39:35 PM

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

Started in 1933, not 1931.


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

theknuckler_33: No the argument was that government hiring ditch diggers creates demand. Unemployed people get jobs to meet that demand. You admitted this fact. Those people who got jobs to meet the demand of the ditch diggers also create demand that new jobs will be needed to fill. The ditch diggers can take those jobs.


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

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

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

Umm, that doesn't make a lot sense.

hahahaha


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

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

theknuckler_33: And yet they do exist. It's as if there is demand for cars beyond the employees of the car company. Maybe the shoemaker has people besides government employed ditch diggers buying their shoes.


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

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

Umm, that doesn't make a lot sense.


What is this.. I dont even..?

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

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


Yes it did.

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

No, not really.

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

CPennypacker: I just don't get it.


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

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

Umm, that doesn't make a lot sense.


I'll put it in terms you can understand.

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

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

Umm, that doesn't make a lot sense.

hahahaha

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

I just don't get it.


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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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


MattStafford: What part did I get wrong?

All of it


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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

MattStafford: Either explain it, or fark off.


Coconuts
 
2013-03-20 03:55:09 PM

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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


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

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

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

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


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

MattStafford: So suppose you split the economy into two groups, me and everyone else.  Also, suppose there is a large unemployed population and several factories that are ready to produce goods.


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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

Economics is just so very confusing


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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

Proceed with the derp about Medicare.

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


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

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


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

/coconuts
 
2013-03-20 04:09:25 PM

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


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

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

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

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

Proceed with the derp about Medicare.

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

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


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

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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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

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


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

skullkrusher: good Lord... nevermind


Government borrows money from the SSTF/Foreign Creditors.

Government pays people to dig ditches.

Ditch diggers buy goods and services throughout the economy.

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

Government pays people to dig ditches.

Ditch diggers buy goods and services throughout the economy.

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

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

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


No there is one other option

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

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

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

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

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

good Lord... nevermind


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

I know why.

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


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

MyKingdomForYourHorse: No there is one other option

Option 4 - Potato


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

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


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

MattStafford: MyKingdomForYourHorse: No there is one other option

Option 4 - Potato

Nothing gets by you.


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

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


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

MattStafford: skullkrusher: good Lord... nevermind

Government borrows money from the SSTF/Foreign Creditors.

Government pays people to dig ditches.

Ditch diggers buy goods and services throughout the economy.

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

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

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


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

I think we're going with Option 4.

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

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

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

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

Link:

Link:

Link:

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

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

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

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

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

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


That ain't no tappin' out!

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

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

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

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

Link:

Link:

Link:

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

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

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

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

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

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

That ain't no tappin' out!

This ain't no disco!


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

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


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

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

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

Umm, that doesn't make a lot sense.


WTF?

I mean seriously, WTF?

You have to be screwing with us farkers.
 
2013-03-20 04:53:27 PM

meat0918: MattStafford: theknuckler_33: More people working = more tax receipts. No need to raise taxes.

Umm, that doesn't make a lot sense.

WTF?

I mean seriously, WTF?

You have to be screwing with us farkers.


Dude this is Fark.  I can't believe sock-puppets still evoke this kind of response, even amongst long-term Farkers.
 
2013-03-20 04:54:08 PM

whidbey: Let's just sick the liberal fact checkers on him

[FREEPER-ALERT.JPG]


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 (sic) the liberal fact checkers on him. See, I told you...oh, he's right?
 
2013-03-20 04:56:07 PM

whidbey: meat0918: MattStafford: theknuckler_33: More people working = more tax receipts. No need to raise taxes.

Umm, that doesn't make a lot sense.

WTF?

I mean seriously, WTF?

You have to be screwing with us farkers.

Dude this is Fark.  I can't believe sock-puppets still evoke this kind of response, even amongst long-term Farkers.


I know, I just couldn't help myself.
 
2013-03-20 04:59:04 PM

MattStafford: Government hires a ditch digger. Ditch digger hires a barber. Barber buys a video game from EA. EA adds some money to an account. Ditch digger gets fired. Barber gets fired. EA eventually (maybe) pays some more in taxes.


I yank the pull cord on my lawnmower to get the thing up and running, and (assuming everything is in decent order) the mower will run self-sustainably without me having to constantly yank the pull cord.
 
2013-03-20 05:02:49 PM

whidbey: meat0918: MattStafford: theknuckler_33: More people working = more tax receipts. No need to raise taxes.

Umm, that doesn't make a lot sense.

WTF?

I mean seriously, WTF?

You have to be screwing with us farkers.

Dude this is Fark.  I can't believe sock-puppets still evoke this kind of response, even amongst long-term Farkers.


Dude.

Seriously.

You, of all people? You know how this game works.
 
2013-03-20 05:15:29 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?


Why would I click on a link to a site with a well-trod history of half-truths, flat-out lies and completely biased reporting? Or to put it another way:

sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net
 
2013-03-20 05:15:51 PM
That's the entire point of the need for health care overhaul, geniuses.
 
2013-03-20 05:25:45 PM
Because profitability is the only metric of success for welfare programs.
 
2013-03-20 05:31:50 PM
I get so many responses because I'm right. You can also tell by the fact that the vast majority of posts are simply making fun of me as opposed to actually answering the questions I'm bringing up.
 
2013-03-20 05:35:06 PM

A Dark Evil Omen: whidbey: meat0918: MattStafford: theknuckler_33: More people working = more tax receipts. No need to raise taxes.

Umm, that doesn't make a lot sense.

WTF?

I mean seriously, WTF?

You have to be screwing with us farkers.

Dude this is Fark.  I can't believe sock-puppets still evoke this kind of response, even amongst long-term Farkers.

Dude.

Seriously.

You, of all people? You know how this game works.


Hey, now. This is a touchy subject here.
You need to take into account some Farkers' feelings-
we want to include all points of view here.
With lib-u-lardos you have to approach it carefully...
or you might skook 'em
 
2013-03-20 05:36:25 PM

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

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

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

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


So what you're saying that it wasn't the government spending of the New Deal that got us out of the depression but the EVEN GREATER government spending on WW2 and its after effects that got us out???  Which is exactly what the people pushing for the New Deal said we should do.  FDR caving in to right-wing demands for deficit cuts which caused that slump you mentioned.  So congratulations, you agree with Keynesian economics and what everyone here is saying.  Discussion over.

BTW, we don't need make-work ditch digging jobs.  There are plenty of ditches out there that need to be dug and we could have a use for.  And by ditches I mean our crumbling infrastructure which if we let continue to decay, might as well be tossed into a ditch for all the good it will be.  Cry all you want but eventually some things have to be taken care of.
 
2013-03-20 05:44:43 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]


A lot of those costs are Medical Providers increasing costs to cover Medicaid (which in Illinois is between and 3 months and 2 years behind on payments) which often doesn't even cover the costs of a procedure or transport( as a paramedic in management I am acutely aware of costs). There are also ideas out there including community paramedicine which could lower costs and prevent ER abuse. Community Paramedicine (basically Paramedics trained to higher levels of care and working with doctors to handle patients needs at home. This leads to less unnecessary ER trips. But getting Medicare to allow EMS to bill as providers instead of as transportation is the problem.
 
2013-03-20 05:46:42 PM

MattStafford: I get so many responses because I'm right. You can also tell by the fact that the vast majority of posts are simply making fun of me as opposed to actually answering the questions I'm bringing up.


Bwahahaha!  Or it could be that you are "not even wrong." I think you've been told this before.
 
2013-03-20 05:46:45 PM

I Like Bread: Because profitability is the only metric of success for welfare programs.


the only metric that really matters is can we sustain it or not. Anything else is ego wanking BS.
 
2013-03-20 05:48:46 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.


MattStafford is not stupid, he is actually a top performing member of his astroturf agency.

Always on topic, always with the same talking points, no wasted effort on irrelevant topics.  MattStafford once again receives an "Exceeds Expectations" rating on his quarterly review.
 
2013-03-20 05:53:48 PM

MattStafford: I get so many responses because I'm right. You can also tell by the fact that the vast majority of posts are simply making fun of me as opposed to actually answering the questions I'm bringing up.


When you attempt to equivocate a multi-trillion dollar national economy of a population of over 300 million people with a purely fictional 'economy' involving 2 or 3 people and 2 or 3 products, you deserve to be mocked mercilessly. You're questions literally have no bearing on what is happening in the real world. You admit that government hiring workers creates demand that will result in increased demand leading to the hiring of more unemployed people to meet that demand, yet somehow think that those other newly employed people will not also create further demand of their own that also must be met by the hiring of additional new workers without explaining how or why demand leads to new jobs in one case, but not the other. You seem completely unwilling to acknowledge the idea of a phased end of stimulative measures to minimize the negative impact of removing government stimulus to ensure that the economy is self-sustaining.  In addition, you said that more people working leading to more tax receipts doesn't make much sense. For goodness sakes, that is basic mathematics. You deserve every bit of mocking you have received and more.

/coconuts
 
2013-03-20 06:03:29 PM

Glicky: MattStafford is not stupid, he is actually a top performing member of his astroturf agency.


I wonder if the astroturf industry cares about the quality of counter-arguments made to their fake green carpet and if the responses of their operatives are graded.
 
2013-03-20 06:04:10 PM

burning_bridge: So what you're saying that it wasn't the government spending of the New Deal that got us out of the depression but the EVEN GREATER government spending on WW2 and its after effects that got us out???  Which is exactly what the people pushing for the New Deal said we should do.  FDR caving in to right-wing demands for deficit cuts which caused that slump you mentioned.  So congratulations, you agree with Keynesian economics and what everyone here is saying.  Discussion over.


Are you suggesting that war is an excellent stimulative program?  If we were to quadruple our troop presence overseas, are you suggesting we would improve the economy?

I can't believe people still believe in military Keynesianism.  Christ, it has to be the most obvious failing of Keynesianism.

/going into debt and spending our money and resources actively destroying things will improve our economy via magic.
 
MFK
2013-03-20 06:05:02 PM
when did we get to the point where we have to give every stupid troll's stupid ideas any sort of merit or we're "intolerant"?

I've been noticing this a lot in recent days, between this MattStafford idiot (and that word is waaaaay too kind) and that GoSlash27 nimrod (again, waaaaay too kind).

YOUR IGNORANCE IS NOT AS VALID AS ACTUAL KNOWLEDGE.
 
2013-03-20 06:09:37 PM

MattStafford: I get so many responses because I'm right. You can also tell by the fact that the vast majority of posts are simply making fun of me as opposed to actually answering the questions I'm bringing up.


Then why don't you get so many responses agreeing with you?

I've been enjoying this thread a lot, so I'll give it a shot. Using your ditch digger analogy, yes, you can boost the economy. The ditch digger digs a ditch, hires a barber, etc. who pays for an apple, the apple farmer now has more money to hire another unemployed person to help on the farm, with this he gets increased yield that he can sell to people outside the town, with this new revenue he buys things from the local drug store, the owner can now afford a part time man to help sweep up. When the ditch digger stops digging, the increased industry from the farm means that the new farm hand can afford a haircut, so now he goes to the barber, closing the loop without need for a ditch digger. When the guy who hired the ditch digger comes back to town, the revenues from the improved farm let's the town pay the man back with a little something extra as a thank you.
 
2013-03-20 06:11:26 PM

Mercutio74: Glicky: MattStafford is not stupid, he is actually a top performing member of his astroturf agency.

I wonder if the astroturf industry cares about the quality of counter-arguments made to their fake green carpet and if the responses of their operatives are graded.


I pretty sure it is a quantity metric.  There may be additional subjective evaluations made regarding how well discussion was derailed.
 
2013-03-20 06:14:31 PM

theknuckler_33: When you attempt to equivocate a multi-trillion dollar national economy of a population of over 300 million people with a purely fictional 'economy' involving 2 or 3 people and 2 or 3 products, you deserve to be mocked mercilessly.


The laws of economics do not change based on the size of the population.  The effects of a certain policy may be easier to hide, or even completely unnoticeable, but they do not change.  If you believe they change, explain why they change and where in particular do they change.

For example - Suppose you have a small town using a currency.  I print up a bunch of currency and buy a ton of goods, and then skip town.  Surely this hurts that small towns currency, and it will be very painful.

Suppose you do the same thing, but with a larger town.  It would still hurt the economy, however the effects would be less noticeable.

Suppose you do the same thing, but with a very large economy.  I would argue, based on the fact that a similar policy above hurt their economies, that this would also hurt this large economy.  You, however, appear to argue just the opposite, that this policy would, in fact, be good for the economy.

So am I incorrect in assuming the counterfeiting and skipping town in the town examples is bad for those town's economies?  Or do you believe that there is something fundamentally different between the towns and the large economy?  And what specifically makes it different?  Is it simply the number of actors present in the economy?  Why does the number of actors somehow make the policy better?  Is there a cut off point, where above this population currency printing is good and below currency printing is bad?

I'm honestly curious.  I create a lot of these analogies, and then extrapolate them to reality.  I am then told that these analogies don't apply in the real world, but I'm never told why.  It is as though there is some fundamental difference between a large economy and a small economy, but no one ever articulates what that difference is, or why that difference would cause an identical policy to have opposite effects.

Perhaps you could help me answer those questions.
 
2013-03-20 06:16:11 PM

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

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


I think Matt outsmarted you and now you are embarrassed. I'll try but we cant all be funny and clever like you. When you said you stuck a toy up your rectum I thought it was hilarious.

MattStafford: I get so many responses because I'm right. You can also tell by the fact that the vast majority of posts are simply making fun of me as opposed to actually answering the questions I'm bringing up.


I think thats what it is, your ideas are just too brilliant. Have you thought about working at Heritage or the Cato Institute?
 
2013-03-20 06:17:54 PM

MattStafford: Surely this hurts that small towns currency, and it will be very painful.


Not necessarily. It depends on way more factors that really can be covered here, but if the place has both raw materials and the means to produce a variety of finished products from those materials without requiring getting other materials from outside the town, they'll be fine. If they happen to have the good fortune to be able to produce finished products that have high value ie high prices, then they'll turn out fairly quickly.
 
2013-03-20 06:26:12 PM

MattStafford: theknuckler_33: When you attempt to equivocate a multi-trillion dollar national economy of a population of over 300 million people with a purely fictional 'economy' involving 2 or 3 people and 2 or 3 products, you deserve to be mocked mercilessly.

The laws of economics do not change based on the size of the population.  The effects of a certain policy may be easier to hide, or even completely unnoticeable, but they do not change.  If you believe they change, explain why they change and where in particular do they change.

For example - Suppose you have a small town using a currency.  I print up a bunch of currency and buy a ton of goods, and then skip town.  Surely this hurts that small towns currency, and it will be very painful.


I'm done with your asinine analogies. If the government hires a lot of workers, that will increase demand that leads to new jobs... you have admitted that fact in this very thread. Do you believe that those other new jobs will themselves lead to increased demand that will also lead to new jobs? Yes or no.
 
2013-03-20 06:27:42 PM

nmrsnr: with this he gets increased yield that he can sell to people outside the town


If that demand was already present, why wouldn't he already be meeting it?

If the problem was lack of infrastructure or help that the farmer couldn't afford, couldn't we have just started with "the apple farmer borrows money to invest in his farm" and go from there?  What was the point of the ditch digger?

Also, you are operating under the assumption that the money will be invested by the apple farmer.  Perhaps instead of investing it, the apple farmer just buys something else.  And that person buys something else.  And when the person who originally hired the ditch digger comes back to town, you'll have to raise taxes and stop the cycle, resetting the economy.

And even more so, you are relying on the assumption that the ditch digger's money successfully makes it to the apple farmer.  The ditch digger could have bought an iPod instead, and the money goes to Apple, and that local economy receives no boost.

It is possible for a ditch digging program to successfully lead to investment, but that is completely relying on hoping that an eventual recipient of that money will invest in.  Based on the fact that the money was initially spent in the ditch digging industry, if it is invested, it will most likely be invested in a field or area related to the ditch digging industry, which would be a wasted investment.
 
2013-03-20 06:29:07 PM

WhyteRaven74: Not necessarily. It depends on way more factors that really can be covered here, but if the place has both raw materials and the means to produce a variety of finished products from those materials without requiring getting other materials from outside the town, they'll be fine. If they happen to have the good fortune to be able to produce finished products that have high value ie high prices, then they'll turn out fairly quickly.


Well, yeah.  If they're a strong economy, they'll do fine.  But all things equal, they are worse off after my counterfeiting foray than they were before.
 
2013-03-20 06:30:18 PM

NateGrey: I think Matt outsmarted you and now you are embarrassed. I'll try but we cant all be funny and clever like you. When you said you stuck a toy up your rectum I thought it was hilarious.


you're right. Like, for example, repeating incessantly a joke I made a few years back isn't funny. It isn't clever. No one is laughing with you. Maybe to freshen it up a bit you can start linking to this thread where I joked that pennypacker gave me butt herpes. Ya know, just for a change of pace.
 
2013-03-20 06:30:33 PM

MattStafford: So am I incorrect in assuming the counterfeiting and skipping town in the town examples is bad for those town's economies?

...

I create a lot of these analogies, and then extrapolate them to reality.


...

Perhaps you could help me answer those questions.

The government's monetary policies are not equivalent to counterfeiting.
 
2013-03-20 06:32:58 PM

theknuckler_33: I'm done with your asinine analogies. If the government hires a lot of workers, that will increase demand that leads to new jobs... you have admitted that fact in this very thread. Do you believe that those other new jobs will themselves lead to increased demand that will also lead to new jobs? Yes or no.


Yes I do, but the story isn't finished there.  You need to take it to its conclusion:  Do you believe that the taxes that eventually have to pay to cover the debt accrued to hire those workers will lead to less jobs?  Yes or no?

Do you believe that having your economy based around government jobs that will not be there forever is a good thing?  Yes or no?
 
2013-03-20 06:34:46 PM

theknuckler_33: The government's monetary policies are not equivalent to counterfeiting.


These are the things that you need to explain: if the government prints up a 100 dollar bill and spends it, it is good, but if I print up a hundred dollar bill and spend it, it is bad?

What is different about the two situations?
 
2013-03-20 06:42:51 PM

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

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

I think Matt outsmarted you and now you are embarrassed. I'll try but we cant all be funny and clever like you. When you said you stuck a toy up your rectum I thought it was hilarious.

MattStafford: I get so many responses because I'm right. You can also tell by the fact that the vast majority of posts are simply making fun of me as opposed to actually answering the questions I'm bringing up.

I think thats what it is, your ideas are just too brilliant. Have you thought about working at Heritage or the Cato Institute?


Well doesn't it look like somebody wishes he could run with the big dogs...
 
2013-03-20 06:50:30 PM

whidbey: Well doesn't it look like somebody wishes he could run with the big dogs...


Mr skooks himself. How have you been? I liked your line:

whidbey: I can't believe sock-puppets still evoke this kind of response, even amongst long-term Farkers.


Dont want any one infringing on your thing.
 
2013-03-20 06:53:50 PM

NateGrey: I think thats what it is, your ideas are just too brilliant. Have you thought about working at Heritage or the Cato Institute?


You do realize that I'm very liberal, right?  I am in favor of wealth redistribution and safety nets and ensuring that everyone has access to health care and education.  I'm in favor of government research and development.  I just understand that the government has to pay for those things via tax revenue, and shouldn't pay for them (most of them anyway) via borrowing.