Doc Posted August 6, 2014 Share Posted August 6, 2014 Wait, that wasn't obvious to everyone else? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted August 6, 2014 Share Posted August 6, 2014 You posted something you didn't even read? What the !@#$ is wrong with you? In gator's little knob-gobbling statist world, he didn't post something he didn't read. He posted something he was told to spread around by the people he relies on to think for him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted August 6, 2014 Share Posted August 6, 2014 Here's an article that addresses "concerns" about the O.P's article ...........................................and I read it S&P says income inequality is ‘dampening’ US growth. Really? Not so fast … by James Pethokoukis The center-left has a Grand Unified Theory of Why the US Economy Stinks. Otherwise known as “secular stagnation”or “middle-out economics,” it holds that income inequality hurts economic growth by reducing middle-class spending power. Its chief promoter is Larry Summers, former Obama White House economist and Clinton administration Treasury Secretary. Apparently, Standard & Poor’s is now also a believer. In a new report, “How Increasing Income Inequality Is Dampening U.S. Economic Growth, And Possible Ways To Change The Tide,” S&P’s US Chief Economist Beth Ann Bovino digs through the data and concludes thusly: Our review of the data, as well as a wealth of research on this matter, leads us to conclude that the current level of income inequality in the U.S. is dampening GDP growth, at a time when the world’s biggest economy is struggling to recover from the Great Recession and the government is in need of funds to support an aging population. Now this is kind of a big deal, since S&P isn’t some progressive think tank doing the bidding of Hillary 2016. It’s a still influential bond-rating firm. And that shows, argues The New York Times’s Neil Irwin, “how a debate that has been largely confined to the academic world and left-of-center political circles is becoming more mainstream.” But as this debate grows in importance and visibility, making sure it is data driven and research rich is critical. And there are problems with this report. 1.) S&P accepts the idea that since the 1% appear to be grabbing an ever-greater share of income gains in recent decades, rising income inequality is slowing economic growth because they rich have a higher marginal propensity to save than those lower down the income distribution. But as Paul Ashworth of Capital Economics noted in a recent report, if rising inequality were actually holding back the economy, you would expect to see the household savings rate rising over the past few decades and consumption accounting for a smaller share of overall GDP. Rather, the household savings rate has been rising for three decades, and “even allowing for the drop back over the past few years, consumption now accounts for a larger share of GDP. That suggests rising income inequality has not been a dominant macro force.” Three more reasons at the link: http://www.aei-ideas...ly-not-so-fast/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted August 7, 2014 Share Posted August 7, 2014 (edited) I didn't see anything wrong with these ideas Next question...I know there is one. [Pointless...lol] No, no more questions. But I'll tell you what's wrong with those ideas. They don't work. http://www.nytimes.c...wanted=all&_r=0 Obama's Stimulus Plan Obama's plan aims to stimulate employment, certain critical economic sectors, and U.S. consumer spending. It specifies $550 billion in spending on new projects and $275 billion in tax cuts. The initial plan (PDF) includes investments for: Energy, including $32 billion to transform the U.S. energy grid to make it more efficient; $16 billion to repair public housing and make it more energy efficient; and $6 billion to weatherize low-income homes; Science and technology, including $10 billion for new scientific facilities and $6 billion to improve broadband Internet access in rural areas; Infrastructure, including $30 billion for highways; $31 billion to modernize federal buildings and other public infrastructure; $19 billion for clean water, flood control, and other environmental investments; and $10 billion to improve public transit and rail infrastructure; Education, including $41 billion for local school districts, $79 billion in outlays to states to prevent educational service cutbacks; $15.6 billion to broaden the federal Pell Grant program, which gives need-based grants to fund education; and $6 billion to modernize higher education programs; and Health care, including $87 billion for Medicaid; $20 billion to improve health information technology; and around $4 billion to improve preventative care. How did that work out for ya?? BTW that's a rhetorical question just in case you tiny brain couldn't figure that out. Edited August 7, 2014 by Chef Jim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted August 7, 2014 Author Share Posted August 7, 2014 No, no more questions. But I'll tell you what's wrong with those ideas. They don't work. http://www.nytimes.c...wanted=all&_r=0 How did that work out for ya?? BTW that's a rhetorical question just in case you tiny brain couldn't figure that out. What makes you say they don't work? What are you saying specifically doesn't work? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted August 7, 2014 Share Posted August 7, 2014 What makes you say they don't work? What are you saying specifically doesn't work? Even if he answers you won't read it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted August 7, 2014 Author Share Posted August 7, 2014 Even if he answers you won't read it. Wrong again. You are batting a thousand. No, can't wait to read his answer. I have the feeling it's something along the lines of "it's just self evident" as if Rush Limbo or some other right wing celebrity he listens to has been saying something about it long enough, so it must be true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted August 7, 2014 Share Posted August 7, 2014 Just a friendly reminder: I didn't read the report. So what? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted August 7, 2014 Share Posted August 7, 2014 What makes you say they don't work? What are you saying specifically doesn't work? Did it work the last time? And please what right wing celebrities do you think I listen to? Please go ahead list them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted August 7, 2014 Author Share Posted August 7, 2014 Did it work the last time? And please what right wing celebrities do you think I listen to? Please go ahead list them. Can you define "work"? I know you probably wanted "work" to mean solved every single economic problem that has ever existed. And no it didn't do that. But if you mean that it created jobs, pumped money into the consumer economy and stimulated spending, then yes it worked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted August 7, 2014 Share Posted August 7, 2014 Can you define "work"? Figures a die-hard Obama liberal can't define "work." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted August 7, 2014 Author Share Posted August 7, 2014 Figures a die-hard Obama liberal can't define "work." Meazzo probably spit his coffee out laughing at this and thought, "Gosh, Tom is just the greatest." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted August 7, 2014 Share Posted August 7, 2014 Can you define "work"? I know you probably wanted "work" to mean solved every single economic problem that has ever existed. And no it didn't do that. But if you mean that it created jobs, pumped money into the consumer economy and stimulated spending, then yes it worked. How many jobs were created, how much money actually made to the consumer economy and how much did spending increase directly from the stimulus? Can you get me some actual numbers on that? Once you get those to me we'll see if it worked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted August 7, 2014 Share Posted August 7, 2014 Figures a die-hard Obama liberal can't define "work." /thread Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted August 7, 2014 Author Share Posted August 7, 2014 How many jobs were created, how much money actually made to the consumer economy and how much did spending increase directly from the stimulus? Can you get me some actual numbers on that? Once you get those to me we'll see if it worked. So you say it didn't work, I ask how so, and you answer with more questions? You said it didn't work, and I'm asking you to explain what you mean. So explain or admit the truth that you have no clue about what you are talking about Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted August 7, 2014 Share Posted August 7, 2014 So you say it didn't work, I ask how so, and you answer with more questions? You said it didn't work, and I'm asking you to explain what you mean. So explain or admit the truth that you have no clue about what you are talking about Doesn't matter. You can't know it worked, because you can only compare it to history, which is invalid because history isn't current. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted August 7, 2014 Share Posted August 7, 2014 So you say it didn't work, I ask how so, and you answer with more questions? You said it didn't work, and I'm asking you to explain what you mean. So explain or admit the truth that you have no clue about what you are talking about Isn't it obvious that it didn't work? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted August 7, 2014 Author Share Posted August 7, 2014 Isn't it obvious that it didn't work? Ha ha! The self evident argument alluded to above! And no, not obvious at all. Can you explain what you mean? Obviously Chef can't Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted August 7, 2014 Share Posted August 7, 2014 (edited) So you say it didn't work, I ask how so, and you answer with more questions? You said it didn't work, and I'm asking you to explain what you mean. So explain or admit the truth that you have no clue about what you are talking about The economy is still weak, unemployment is still high, GDP actually dropped earlier this year and our infrastructure is still in the *****. The stimulus is like taking a shot of whiskey. It goes through your body and you feel good for a bit but then the effects wear off and you're again singing the blues. Now give me the numbers I asked for that show it has worked long term. Edited August 7, 2014 by Chef Jim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted August 7, 2014 Share Posted August 7, 2014 Ha ha! The self evident argument alluded to above! And no, not obvious at all. Can you explain what you mean? Obviously Chef can't Yes, but no need to. Chef just did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts