"Our Problem Is Dependency, Not Poverty"

[Tiberius]

 

 

As a dictator, someone else can type his sentences.

 

Of course this is how leftists operate. They want ultimate control because everyone else is too dumb to understand their vision.

Hey!!! You are back to your comfortable role as Tom's monkey!!

 

In reading your post I can almost hear you swallowing

Edited February 14, 2014 by gatorman

[Jauronimo]

Hey!!! You are back to your comfortable role as Tom's monkey!!

 

In reading your post I can almost hear you swallowing

Thats probably just the sound of your heavy mouth breathing pushing out and then sucking back in the drool from your slackened jaw.

[Azalin]

First off, you don't even have to take it from anyone, many people will simply throw their money into the pot. The bond market is a wonderful thing. Secondly, lets face it, the super wealthy--the hardest working of us all, lol--don't spend all their income on consumer goods. I don't think spreading a little of the wealth will be the end of the world. Investing in America will benefit everyone, even the super wealthy

 

I wish I could the dictator of the country, I'd fix things

as far as I know, the bond market doesn't fund any federal programs that address poverty or provide means of assistance for the needy. and you laugh at the idea that the 'super-wealthy' are hard working? really? are they all just a bunch of lazy do-nothings that sit on a fat stack of cash that they inherited? you also mentioned progressive taxation....does that mean that given the concept of 'no taxation without representation' that you support greater representation in congress for those that pay a higher percentage?

[dayman]

it does not disappear, but neither does it magically multiply. if one person has a hundred dollars to spend, he'll spend it. if you take it from him and divide it among 4 government workers, then it's still the same 100 dollars that is spent. what you did was take it from someone who earned it doing something productive, and simply handed it over to other people who's productivity is more than questionable. there is no gain economically at all. this isn't debatable, it's a fact. a best case scenario is that it all comes out even in the end, but that can't happen either because of the administrative costs of collecting those tax dollars and redistributing them.

 

As I understand it, in a sensible world we would run surpluses in good times and then spend that money in down times. In doing so we transfer jobs through time, thus smoothing out the ups and downs. This can be particularly useful in disaster situations. Unfortunately, we run nothing but deficits all the time regardless of who is in power. In any event, this is a pointless paragraph because this is not the world we live in and it addresses general Keynesian principles and not the multiplier directly.

 

So as I understand the actual argument about multipliers, it is your basic loop. How much of the extra spending is spent again, and how many times that loop repeats itself will vary based on general conditions and who gets the money. Under the right conditions and with the right kind of spending, you can get money into the hands of people who spend it like crazy and the loop goes on for quite a bit. In this scenario, the "multiplier" will be greater than 1. In other words, I do believe the multiplier is real.

 

So what about stimulus spending to take advantage of the multiplier in times of crisis when we weren't running surpluses first and basically borrow or print the money? I think it is pretty clear to everyone printing money doesn't create wealth, but it creates money. In theory, if the multiplier on that money is large and the economy is hurting badly, this could be worth it. Borrowing money can be viewed only as creating future taxes (although that view is highly theoretical in my opinion, based on what I see us and other nations actually do). But the key is, when faced with certain conditions and certain kinds of spending during those conditions--can you hit a multiplier that helps you come out of the hole more quickly and thus be worth it in the end...despite the problems with having not run surpluses first.

 

I think the answer is yes, you can. But it is far from some magic thing that will fix everything. And it isn't easy to do.

 

That said, I'm not an economist I just read the paper and blogs. I'm an idiot.

Edited February 15, 2014 by SameOldBills

[3rdnlng]

As I understand it, in a sensible world we would run surpluses in good times and then spend that money in down times. In doing so we transfer jobs through time, thus smoothing out the ups and downs. This can be particularly useful in disaster situations. Unfortunately, we run nothing but deficits all the time regardless of who is in power. In any event, this is a pointless paragraph because this is not the world we live in and it addresses general Keynesian principles and not the multiplier directly.

 

So as I understand the actual argument about multipliers, it is your basic loop. How much of the extra spending is spent again, and how many times that loop repeats itself will vary based on general conditions and who gets the money. Under the right conditions and with the right kind of spending, you can get money into the hands of people who spend it like crazy and the loop goes on for quite a bit. In this scenario, the "multiplier" will be greater than 1. In other words, I do believe the multiplier is real.

 

So what about stimulus spending to take advantage of the multiplier in times of crisis when we weren't running surpluses first and basically borrow or print the money? I think it is pretty clear to everyone printing money doesn't create wealth, but it creates money. In theory, if the multiplier on that money is large and the economy is hurting badly, this could be worth it. Borrowing money can be viewed only as creating future taxes (although that view is highly theoretical in my opinion, based on what I see us and other nations actually do). But the key is, when faced with certain conditions and certain kinds of spending during those conditions--can you hit a multiplier that helps you come out of the hole more quickly and thus be worth it in the end...despite the problems with having not run surpluses first.

 

I think the answer is yes, you can. But it is far from some magic thing that will fix everything. And it isn't easy to do.

 

That said, I'm not an economist I just read the paper and blogs. I'm an idiot.

 

We agree. For once.

[DC Tom]

As I understand it, in a sensible world we would run surpluses in good times and then spend that money in down times. In doing so we transfer jobs through time, thus smoothing out the ups and downs. This can be particularly useful in disaster situations. Unfortunately, we run nothing but deficits all the time regardless of who is in power. In any event, this is a pointless paragraph because this is not the world we live in and it addresses general Keynesian principles and not the multiplier directly.

 

So as I understand the actual argument about multipliers, it is your basic loop. How much of the extra spending is spent again, and how many times that loop repeats itself will vary based on general conditions and who gets the money. Under the right conditions and with the right kind of spending, you can get money into the hands of people who spend it like crazy and the loop goes on for quite a bit. In this scenario, the "multiplier" will be greater than 1. In other words, I do believe the multiplier is real.

 

So what about stimulus spending to take advantage of the multiplier in times of crisis when we weren't running surpluses first and basically borrow or print the money? I think it is pretty clear to everyone printing money doesn't create wealth, but it creates money. In theory, if the multiplier on that money is large and the economy is hurting badly, this could be worth it. Borrowing money can be viewed only as creating future taxes (although that view is highly theoretical in my opinion, based on what I see us and other nations actually do). But the key is, when faced with certain conditions and certain kinds of spending during those conditions--can you hit a multiplier that helps you come out of the hole more quickly and thus be worth it in the end...despite the problems with having not run surpluses first.

 

I think the answer is yes, you can. But it is far from some magic thing that will fix everything. And it isn't easy to do.

 

That said, I'm not an economist I just read the paper and blogs. I'm an idiot.

 

This is usually the part where John Maynard Keynes jumps up and screams "No, no, dammit, that's not what I meant!"

[dayman]

This is usually the part where John Maynard Keynes jumps up and screams "No, no, dammit, that's not what I meant!"

 

Haha, most definitely. I don't get it either, obviously. Point being if there is productive and nonproductive ways to spend money then multipliers are real eh?

[Tiberius]

 

 

We agree. For once.

 

Hey, just want to say you really added a lot to the discussion there. I mean if you have no intelligent thoughts to add, why say anything? And then you criticize others for, well, being left of you, I guess. Talk about a poster that adds nothing, look in the mirror.

[3rdnlng]

Hey, just want to say you really added a lot to the discussion there. I mean if you have no intelligent thoughts to add, why say anything? And then you criticize others for, well, being left of you, I guess. Talk about a poster that adds nothing, look in the mirror.

 

I've earned the right to make a few snarky remarks here and there. I post articles that generally lead to good discussions. I post snippets of the article that gives a reader a sense of what the link is about and lets them choose to open or not. I post opinions from a basis. You on the other hand, post dribble and the sum of your posts are calling people names and telling them they are partisan hacks. So again, you contribute nothing here but do degrade any thread you post in.

[Azalin]

As I understand it, in a sensible world we would run surpluses in good times and then spend that money in down times. In doing so we transfer jobs through time, thus smoothing out the ups and downs. This can be particularly useful in disaster situations. Unfortunately, we run nothing but deficits all the time regardless of who is in power. In any event, this is a pointless paragraph because this is not the world we live in and it addresses general Keynesian principles and not the multiplier directly.

 

So as I understand the actual argument about multipliers, it is your basic loop. How much of the extra spending is spent again, and how many times that loop repeats itself will vary based on general conditions and who gets the money. Under the right conditions and with the right kind of spending, you can get money into the hands of people who spend it like crazy and the loop goes on for quite a bit. In this scenario, the "multiplier" will be greater than 1. In other words, I do believe the multiplier is real.

 

So what about stimulus spending to take advantage of the multiplier in times of crisis when we weren't running surpluses first and basically borrow or print the money? I think it is pretty clear to everyone printing money doesn't create wealth, but it creates money. In theory, if the multiplier on that money is large and the economy is hurting badly, this could be worth it. Borrowing money can be viewed only as creating future taxes (although that view is highly theoretical in my opinion, based on what I see us and other nations actually do). But the key is, when faced with certain conditions and certain kinds of spending during those conditions--can you hit a multiplier that helps you come out of the hole more quickly and thus be worth it in the end...despite the problems with having not run surpluses first.

 

I think the answer is yes, you can. But it is far from some magic thing that will fix everything. And it isn't easy to do.

 

That said, I'm not an economist I just read the paper and blogs. I'm an idiot.

I'm not an economist either, and I appreciate your honesty in that regard. all I know on the subject are the basics, combined with what I've seen happen in our country during my adult lifetime, and my viewpoint is biased in that it reflects things as I have experienced them. over and over I have seen one economic 'crisis' or another develop due to government interference in economic matters, whether by creating new regulations for the financial industry, new mandates to create assistance programs (re freddie/fannie), or direct intervention (bailouts). keeping in mind that it's the feds that set the regulatory environment within which these businesses operate, those businesses employ teams of attorneys to aid them in navigating the masses of regulation within which they are constrained. it is my belief that business and finance should be much more simple, that there should be a degree of consumer protection, but little else. I believe that most of the economic trouble we experience is due to government interference, not something inherent to business itself. what's the best way to achieve this? I'm not certain about that, but I think a great place to start would be to get the feds the hell out of most areas where they've insinuated themselves, and allow businesses to operate as they will, and people to invest and otherwise live as they will.

Edited February 15, 2014 by Azalin