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

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

2713 clicks; posted to Politics » on 20 Mar 2013 at 12:24 PM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Last | Show all
 
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."
 
Displayed 50 of 754 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


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

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

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

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report