Foxx Posted January 17, 2019 Posted January 17, 2019 (edited) 16 minutes ago, TPS said: The impact is unique to each country depending upon its resources and current state of the economy. If the Fed added another $6 trillion over the next four years, we'd see a significant jump in inflation given the current state of the economy, 3.7% unemployment currently. i believe the only reason we got away with it to this point is because the USD is the world's reserve. that only goes so far though. kept up, there will come a point where other nations reject the USD and that would be the beginning of a bifurcated dollar. 16 minutes ago, TPS said: ...When exactly will the US government die? all regimes die at some point. ours has outlived the norm and as such, it is living on borrowed time. Edited January 17, 2019 by Foxx 1
unbillievable Posted January 17, 2019 Posted January 17, 2019 I'm going to come back to this thread later... Hopefully, by then I can find a reason why someone who clearly learned enough economic theory to spout the benefits of government spending, somehow missed the second half on the consequences of using it as an ongoing policy. A final argument: if all we had to do to create an economic boom was to have government spend boatloads of money, why has no one done it yet? Why tolerate recessions at all? Similarly, why can't we just pay everyone $1000/hr.
DC Tom Posted January 17, 2019 Posted January 17, 2019 3 hours ago, TPS said: From 1940 to 1945 real GDP grew by 75% or 12% annually. Did the private sector cause that growth? if so, how? Picking the only instance in recorded history of economic growth during a major war hardly proves your point.
TPS Posted January 18, 2019 Posted January 18, 2019 2 hours ago, unbillievable said: Do you realize that you're only argument is that nothing can go wrong because everything is fine right now? "This time it will work because we're special and no one did it correctly before".... where have we heard that before. Hmmm...I thought I just said that if the Fed were to try QE at this point of the recovery it would cause inflation. silly me. 2 hours ago, Foxx said: i believe the only reason we got away with it to this point is because the USD is the world's reserve. that only goes so far though. kept up, there will come a point where other nations reject the USD and that would be the beginning of a bifurcated dollar. all regimes die at some point. ours has outlived the norm and as such, it is living on borrowed time. It's not a necessary condition. I'm not sure what you mean by "reject the dollar"? China, Japan, the Saudis et al stop accumulating reserves? Oil is prices in another currency? You'll have to expand. Given our policies of endless war and outsourcing manufacturing, we will certainly see a demise. These are two areas where I hope Trump makes a difference.
The_Dude Posted January 18, 2019 Posted January 18, 2019 3 hours ago, unbillievable said: Your bias is showing. Both parties use deficits to push their "plan". Republicans believe that the primary responsibility of any government is defense of its people (they aren't wrong). The only debate is the appropriate level of defense. While you make fun of the right for prioritizing national defense, they're making fun of the left for wasting money on global warming, and entitlements. Personally, the justification for deficit spending from the left is far more ridiculous than the right's... but that's my bias (and common sense) showing. I think if history shows us anything there’s a fine balance that’s needed. Further, it also depends on the situation. In times of recession I say borrow and spend. In times of prosperity I say save and pay debt. But the military is the most important thing and it must be funded.
TPS Posted January 18, 2019 Posted January 18, 2019 2 hours ago, unbillievable said: I'm going to come back to this thread later... Hopefully, by then I can find a reason why someone who clearly learned enough economic theory to spout the benefits of government spending, somehow missed the second half on the consequences of using it as an ongoing policy. A final argument: if all we had to do to create an economic boom was to have government spend boatloads of money, why has no one done it yet? Why tolerate recessions at all? Similarly, why can't we just pay everyone $1000/hr. Dude, I've said several times it's exactly what Trump has done: he's passed two bills to increase spending and he's cut taxes which raised the 2018 deficit by almost $200 billion. Also, I haven't said government spending is the only way to do it. As GG said, one can also increase deficits by cutting taxes, one part of Trump's plan. Back during the crisis I said one of the best policies would be to cut the payroll tax, which they actually did.
TPS Posted January 18, 2019 Posted January 18, 2019 (edited) 4 hours ago, DC Tom said: Picking the only instance in recorded history of economic growth during a major war hardly proves your point. DCDude, it's called a counterfactual. Tasker and GG claim that government distributes income without creating wealth. I gave ONE example when government was the prime generator of economic growth and wealth. If government can't cause the private sector to create wealth, then how do you explain this case? Was it only possible this one time? Why do you think president's declare war on poverty or terrorism, because they want to raise spending to fight those wars. Now, The problem with accepting this reality is that their libertarian theology comes crashing down. Government can no longer be viewed as stealing wealth if it can help create it. i understand that it is difficult for people to give up their beliefs.... That said, people conflate my describing how things work with my political leanings. The key point is government can expand private sector wealth by spending in excess of its taxes, and can do this as long there are excess resources. Note, that also means government can do the same thing by cutting taxes and keeping spending constant. Yes, I'd like to see more spending that supports the working class and less spending that supports the MIC, but that is a separate question--which is, if we can get the economy to produce more, how should we do it? What should it produce more of? If you want the private sector to make the decisions, then cut more taxes. it's that simple;and it's Trump's policy. If we ever do adopt this strategy, spending and/or taxes have to be more flexible in case we start to experience higher inflation, because the prescription from this perspective is to cut spending (or raise taxes). So there are issues with trying to use fiscal policy as a fine tuning tool, but that is no reason to waste unused resources. If you want to learn something, read this: https://ftalphaville.ft.com/2019/01/16/1547640616000/America-has-never-worried-about-financing-its-priorities/ The last paragraph is something i didn't know: *Modern monetary theory has the least Marxist origin story of any concept in the history of human thought. According to Warren Mosler, credited with inventing it, the idea came "after spending an hour in the steam room with Don Rumsfeld at the Racquet Club in Chicago." Edited January 18, 2019 by TPS 1
/dev/null Posted January 20, 2019 Posted January 20, 2019 https://tech.slashdot.org/story/19/01/19/2215211/venezuelas-government-blocks-access-to-wikipedia When Socialists don't like details, they just don't want you to see them 2
/dev/null Posted January 20, 2019 Posted January 20, 2019 http://thefederalist.com/2019/01/18/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-setting-women-back-light-years-politics/
DC Tom Posted January 20, 2019 Posted January 20, 2019 24 minutes ago, /dev/null said: http://thefederalist.com/2019/01/18/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-setting-women-back-light-years-politics/ Disagree. Ocasio-Cortez is demonstrating to women that politics is open to all of them, no matter how much of an uninformed, ignorant dingbat they might be. 1 1
njbuff Posted January 20, 2019 Posted January 20, 2019 (edited) Is it me or does this moron get way too much attention? Edited January 20, 2019 by njbuff
keepthefaith Posted January 20, 2019 Posted January 20, 2019 12 minutes ago, njbuff said: Is it me or does this moron get way too much attention? Yes until you consider that she's good for viewership. Those that agree with her positions can't wait to hear more and those that think she can't find her behind with either hand can't wait to hear her next laughable comment. Win, win for the media.
DC Tom Posted January 20, 2019 Posted January 20, 2019 1 hour ago, njbuff said: Is it me or does this moron get way too much attention? No, you both get too much attention. Not just you.
IDBillzFan Posted January 21, 2019 Posted January 21, 2019 7 hours ago, njbuff said: Is it me or does this moron get way too much attention? The left doesn't have a message. When you can't be the sharpest tool in the shed, be the shiniest. AOC. Beto. Shiny in lieu sharp. 3
TakeYouToTasker Posted January 21, 2019 Posted January 21, 2019 3 minutes ago, LABillzFan said: The left doesn't have a message. When you can't be the sharpest tool in the shed, be the shiniest. AOC. Beto. Shiny in lieu sharp. Well done.
B-Man Posted January 22, 2019 Posted January 22, 2019 CORTEZ CRACKS: WORLD ENDING IN 12 YEARS! Existence of Billionaires 'Immoral'...
KRC Posted January 22, 2019 Posted January 22, 2019 1 hour ago, B-Man said: Existence of Billionaires 'Immoral'... Without billionaires, who is going to pay for all of the 'free' stuff? 1
Recommended Posts