Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Who do I thank for all the free money?Follow

#102 Feb 16 2012 at 6:58 PM Rating: Excellent
******
43,913 posts
You're going to have to make another old woman disappear first, Joph.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#103 Feb 16 2012 at 6:58 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,738 posts
Debalic wrote:
gbaji wrote:
First off, let me point out that most of the people who say they'd gladly pay higher taxes if they made twice as much money are really saying they want those people who make twice as much as they do to pay higher taxes. If they were actually making that much, they wouldn't say that. They'd still say that people making twice as much of them should pay a higher tax burden though. That's the consistency here, not that people are willing to trade one for the other.

Who, exactly, are these people?


What did you want? A list of names?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#104 Feb 16 2012 at 7:10 PM Rating: Excellent
Prodigal Son
*****
19,979 posts
gbaji wrote:
Debalic wrote:
gbaji wrote:
First off, let me point out that most of the people who say they'd gladly pay higher taxes if they made twice as much money are really saying they want those people who make twice as much as they do to pay higher taxes. If they were actually making that much, they wouldn't say that. They'd still say that people making twice as much of them should pay a higher tax burden though. That's the consistency here, not that people are willing to trade one for the other.

Who, exactly, are these people?


What did you want? A list of names?

If you have them, sure. And also a reasoning behind how you know what these folk believe as opposed to what they say. Or do you have anything other than random conjecture?
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#105 Feb 16 2012 at 8:28 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,738 posts
Debalic wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Debalic wrote:
gbaji wrote:
First off, let me point out that most of the people who say they'd gladly pay higher taxes if they made twice as much money are really saying they want those people who make twice as much as they do to pay higher taxes. If they were actually making that much, they wouldn't say that. They'd still say that people making twice as much of them should pay a higher tax burden though. That's the consistency here, not that people are willing to trade one for the other.

Who, exactly, are these people?


What did you want? A list of names?

If you have them, sure.


Yeah...

Quote:
And also a reasoning behind how you know what these folk believe as opposed to what they say. Or do you have anything other than random conjecture?


An understanding of human behavior? Let's think this through and test. What percentage of people earning say $40k today, if they were told that beginning next week their pay would increase to $80k would *then* argue that taxes on folks making $80k should be doubled? Yes. I'm asking you to speculate here. Or give us some 'not-so-random conjecture'.

It would be a low percentage, right? We all know this. It's human nature.


So when people make a big production of insisting that they'd be more than willing to pay a higher tax rate than the current level if they were making some higher amount of money, should we believe them? I get that this is a somewhat circular argument, but I just don't believe people when they say this. I believe it's far more likely that they don't see themselves ever making that higher amount of money, but want to raise taxes, don't want to pay them themselves, and realize that by saying that they'd be willing to pay that higher amount if their places were reversed, it will appear like their motives are less self centered.


Call me a skeptic, but I think their motives are self centered. Lots more people claim altruistic motives for doing things than actually act in an altruistic manner. Again, it's human nature. And before you say the words "Warren Buffet", it's easy to say you'd pay higher taxes when you have so much money that no amount of tax rate increase that wouldn't collapse the entire economy will ever affect your personal standard of living. Not to mention, his example is used as an argument for income and corporate tax rate increases, which he doesn't pay.


I'm a firm believer in the inherent selfishness of man. And while occasionally I'm pleasantly surprised by truly non-selfish behavior, it's rarely above the "I'll buy you lunch today" level, and at least as a predictor of human behavior, going with selfishness and self interest tends to win every time.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#106 Feb 16 2012 at 8:30 PM Rating: Good
*****
19,852 posts
You're trying to change the argument into one about selfishness instead of one about optimal management of the nation.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#107 Feb 16 2012 at 9:38 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
And before you say the words "Warren Buffet", it's easy to say you'd pay higher taxes when you have so much money that no amount of tax rate increase that wouldn't collapse the entire economy will ever affect your personal standard of living.

Good point. Since it wouldn't affect their standard of living, we should perhaps raise taxes on these people. We could perhaps determine what percentage they make of the US population and, for sake of clarity, round it to the nearest full integer.

I like the way you think, Gbaji!
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#108 Feb 16 2012 at 9:46 PM Rating: Good
Prodigal Son
*****
19,979 posts
gbaji wrote:
Debalic wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Debalic wrote:
gbaji wrote:
First off, let me point out that most of the people who say they'd gladly pay higher taxes if they made twice as much money are really saying they want those people who make twice as much as they do to pay higher taxes. If they were actually making that much, they wouldn't say that. They'd still say that people making twice as much of them should pay a higher tax burden though. That's the consistency here, not that people are willing to trade one for the other.

Who, exactly, are these people?


What did you want? A list of names?

If you have them, sure.


Yeah...

Quote:
And also a reasoning behind how you know what these folk believe as opposed to what they say. Or do you have anything other than random conjecture?


An understanding of human behavior? Let's think this through and test. What percentage of people earning say $40k today, if they were told that beginning next week their pay would increase to $80k would *then* argue that taxes on folks making $80k should be doubled? Yes. I'm asking you to speculate here. Or give us some 'not-so-random conjecture'.

It would be a low percentage, right? We all know this. It's human nature.

Wait, I'm confused. You're not talking about simply moving into a higher tax bracket? You're talking about increasing pay, and *also* increasing the new tax bracket?
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#109 Feb 16 2012 at 10:12 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
28,254 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
And before you say the words "Warren Buffet", it's easy to say you'd pay higher taxes when you have so much money that no amount of tax rate increase that wouldn't collapse the entire economy will ever affect your personal standard of living.

Good point. Since it wouldn't affect their standard of living, we should perhaps raise taxes on these people. We could perhaps determine what percentage they make of the US population and, for sake of clarity, round it to the nearest full integer.

I like the way you think, Gbaji!


...Yes. This.

____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#110 Feb 17 2012 at 2:58 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
31,738 posts
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
You're trying to change the argument into one about selfishness instead of one about optimal management of the nation.


Since the entire thread topic has been about taxes, which is completely different that what we do with the tax money after we get it, I think that maybe you are trying to change the subject.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#111 Feb 17 2012 at 3:04 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,738 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
And before you say the words "Warren Buffet", it's easy to say you'd pay higher taxes when you have so much money that no amount of tax rate increase that wouldn't collapse the entire economy will ever affect your personal standard of living.

Good point. Since it wouldn't affect their standard of living, we should perhaps raise taxes on these people.


It would not affect Warren Buffet's standard of living. Thus, he's not hurt by raising taxes on his earnings. However, it will affect all the things those tax dollars would otherwise have been invested in, and thus hurts the fortunes of many people, and the standards of living of those whom they might otherwise have employed.

See how the self interest bit comes in? He doesn't mind his taxes being raised because they don't hurt him. Those who would be hurt by his taxes being raised do mind. That's why his case does not disprove my argument. People tend to act on self interest. It's human nature. The trick is to configure what you're doing so that a group of people, all acting on their own self interest, creates a positive overall outcome, instead of a negative one.

Conservatives strive to build those positive outcome systems. Liberals build systems which require that human self interest not occur. But since it inevitably does, they have to keep regulating and mandating and restricting in order to force the square peg of their ideologically driven policies to fit into the round hole of the real world.

Edited, Feb 17th 2012 1:05pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#112 Feb 17 2012 at 3:14 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Smiley: laughSmiley: laughSmiley: laugh
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#113 Feb 17 2012 at 6:26 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,738 posts
Well, that was a very clear and concise response there Joph. Oh wait. It's not. So you laugh when you don't have a response and hope no one notices and just joins you I guess? Or is this another defense mechanism to avoid really thinking about the policies of those you support politically?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#114 Feb 17 2012 at 6:42 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
No, I laugh when the other guy did a good enough job of making my argument for me that I don't really need to try and counter it. No need for you to complain about it, Gbaji. Let your fine post stand on its own Smiley: smile
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#115 Feb 17 2012 at 7:45 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,738 posts
Now you're just being delusional.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#116 Feb 17 2012 at 8:00 PM Rating: Good
Everyone's Oiran
Avatar
*****
15,923 posts
gbaji wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
And before you say the words "Warren Buffet", it's easy to say you'd pay higher taxes when you have so much money that no amount of tax rate increase that wouldn't collapse the entire economy will ever affect your personal standard of living.

Good point. Since it wouldn't affect their standard of living, we should perhaps raise taxes on these people.


It would not affect Warren Buffet's standard of living. Thus, he's not hurt by raising taxes on his earnings. However, it will affect all the things those tax dollars would otherwise have been invested in, and thus hurts the fortunes of many people, and the standards of living of those whom they might otherwise have employed.

See how the self interest bit comes in? He doesn't mind his taxes being raised because they don't hurt him. Those who would be hurt by his taxes being raised do mind. That's why his case does not disprove my argument. People tend to act on self interest. It's human nature. The trick is to configure what you're doing so that a group of people, all acting on their own self interest, creates a positive overall outcome, instead of a negative one.

Conservatives strive to build those positive outcome systems.

Instead of most of his money staying in the private sector, more of his money would be invested in the public sector, employing people like soldiers, defence technology contractors, teachers, professors, construction workers, engineers, doctors, nurses, social workers, public transport drivers and engineers, and administrators for all those white and blue collar workers. Lots of people with employment and improved standards of living. And *gasp* increasing the fortunes of millions of Americans who would benefit from functional roads, transport, transport, education, healthcare and the added safety of a military defending them in the black, instead of the red.

____________________________
<3

http://www.reddit.com/r/Forum4/
#117 Feb 17 2012 at 9:36 PM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
*****
19,979 posts
No, the gist is that a tax increase that will in no way affect his standard of living, will somehow devastate his investments to the point where he has to hoard whatever he has left in a bank.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#118 Feb 21 2012 at 5:00 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,738 posts
Aripyanfar wrote:
Instead of most of his money staying in the private sector, more of his money would be invested in the public sector, employing people like soldiers, defence technology contractors, teachers, professors, construction workers, engineers, doctors, nurses, social workers, public transport drivers and engineers, and administrators for all those white and blue collar workers. Lots of people with employment and improved standards of living. And *gasp* increasing the fortunes of millions of Americans who would benefit from functional roads, transport, transport, education, healthcare and the added safety of a military defending them in the black, instead of the red.


I know that it's another popular word that means one thing but which has been taken over by liberal politicians to use for something else entirely, but the word "investment" in an economic sense means that you get more out of what you put in back out than what you put in. When you don't get your money back, but get something else, that's called "buying". You don't "invest" in a new TV. You "buy" one. It's one of my pet peeves that proponents of big government spending have begun using this word to describe what they want.

The reason this matters is that from an economic standpoint, an investment increases the amount of money you have. Buying stuff doesn't. It consumes the money you have. It's the difference between making money and spending it. Something most people should understand innately and I should not have to explain like this. Buffets investments result in greater capital available down the line. Taxing that money and spending it results in less down the line.

It's just one of those interesting public vs private differences that always amazes me. In the private sector a job never costs anything. A job should produce more value than it consumes, resulting in a net positive. In the public sector jobs tend to produce less than they cost. That's why it is far far better to leave the money in the hands of the private market and let it create jobs naturally than to take that money and spend it in the public sector. We should only put money into the public sector if we need to spend it on something the private sector will not spend money on. But we should never think that "job creation" is a function that government does well. Not just for the sake of creating jobs that is.


Edited, Feb 21st 2012 3:07pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#119 Feb 22 2012 at 3:00 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
7,468 posts
Quote:
I know that it's another popular word that means one thing but which has been taken over by liberal politicians to use for something else entirely, but the word "investment" in an economic sense means that you get more out of what you put in back out than what you put in.


Smiley: laughSmiley: lolSmiley: laugh

Right...because investing in a countries infrastructure has never increased economic gain for that country. Thanks for the smile before bed.

Quote:
It's just one of those interesting public vs private differences that always amazes me. In the private sector a job never costs anything. A job should produce more value than it consumes, resulting in a net positive. In the public sector jobs tend to produce less than they cost.


Also...Smiley: rolleyes of course, why should millions benefit from millions when one can make millions, it makes so much sense.

Edited, Feb 22nd 2012 4:11am by rdmcandie
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

#120 Feb 22 2012 at 5:37 PM Rating: Excellent
Smasharoo wrote:

More likely one of them is weak and miserable and suffers through the others spot fucking because they don't have the esteem to leave. That's the dynamic in 99% of "successful" situations. Not my fault, intellectually there's no reason it shouldn't work. It almost never does, though.

Great. Stimulants make it easier for me to concentrate, too.

Look, I don't know anything about you, but it seems pretty obvious that you take GREAT comfort in labels. You should get over this. That you've been diagnosed with ADHD is the absolute least important thing I or anyone else will ever learn about you. It's probably one of the least important things you'll ever learn about yourself. It's a bullsh*t diagnosis in almost every case, an easy thing for a clinician to write down, medicate, and move on.

Again, not my fault. I didn't make it this way. If the meds help, great, take them. Just don't put much value in the label.

Good luck.


Good job spouting off a bunch of tired cliches, and proving you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about on either of these subjects.

The couple I mentioned, both of them have other partners. It's not just one person while the other just pretends it doesn't happen. In fact, all of the friends that I have who are poly, both primary partners either have additional partners or are actively looking for one. Your concept of what poly relationships are like is just a stereotype. Sure, there are relationships out there where one person doesn't actually want it to be open, but is doing it to make the other person happy. Those are the minority though.

Yeah, you don't know anything about ADHD, but that doesn't surprise me. A lot of people think it's a bs diagnosis. It isn't. It's caused by a chemical imbalance in the brain, where two different chemicals (one is dopamine, I forget the other) have trouble traveling between the cerebral cortex and the thalamus. Is ADHD over-diagnosed? Absolutely. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

No, I really don't take great comfort in labels. Labels are useful to help explain things to people. They aren't who I am, they're just a small part.
____________________________
Proudmoore US server:
Popina, 90 Priest
Digits, 86 Shaman
Thelesis, 85 Mage
Willowmei, 85 Druid
Necralita, 85 DK
Shrika, 72 Warlock
Jaquelle, 54 Paladin
Grakine, 32 Hunter
The MMO-Zam's FB group. Please message me first so I know who you are.
#121 Feb 22 2012 at 6:18 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,738 posts
rdmcandie wrote:
Quote:
I know that it's another popular word that means one thing but which has been taken over by liberal politicians to use for something else entirely, but the word "investment" in an economic sense means that you get more out of what you put in back out than what you put in.


Smiley: laughSmiley: lolSmiley: laugh

Right...because investing in a countries infrastructure has never increased economic gain for that country. Thanks for the smile before bed.


You're changing the words. I didn't say that spending money on a country's infrastructure "never" results in economic increase. Obviously, when there's a need for that infrastructure, and the lack of said infrastructure is hindering economic growth, then spending is a good idea. The fallacy comes when you assume that since such spending *can* result in economic growth that it will *always* do so.

More to the point, if the motivation is to build necessary infrastructure, that's one thing. But when the motivation is to "create jobs", your odds of getting a positive economic return drop significantly.

Quote:
Quote:
It's just one of those interesting public vs private differences that always amazes me. In the private sector a job never costs anything. A job should produce more value than it consumes, resulting in a net positive. In the public sector jobs tend to produce less than they cost.


Also...Smiley: rolleyes of course, why should millions benefit from millions when one can make millions, it makes so much sense.


That's an odd interpretation of what I said. My point was that since the owner of a private business will always act in a way which maximizes profits, we can know that if he hires someone, it's because he believes that the value of the labor gained is equal to or greater (usually greater) than the cost to employ that person. Thus, the person gains a job, and the business gains profits. Thus, employment is "free" in the sense that it results in a positive total economic outcome for everyone involved. The entire economic pie is increased by such employment.

But when the government hires people, most of the time it costs more than the value of the labor. This is acceptable when the job being done is necessary in some way (something not directly tied to economic output). So, for example, we pay lots of money to maintain a military. That military does not generate economic benefits. However, the value of that spending is not economic, so that's ok. If you think about it, most of what the government does falls into this category. It performs a variety of services (hopefully) necessary to the functioning of the government itself.


So if one argues that we need more people employed at the DMV, or we need more people employed to fight in our military, or we need more people employed shuffling papers in Washington, or we need more people employed building roads and bridges, those are valid reasons to argue for increased employment in those areas. But anyone who tries to argue that we should create those jobs because it'll cause economic growth are either confused, or lying. Those jobs will not create economic growth. They will consume economic growth. I honestly can't figure out why some people refuse to accept this.


Again, this is not to say that no government job can ever result in positive economic growth. It is to say that on average, government employment does not, and if we're creating jobs purely for the purpose of employing people, we're missing the bigger economic picture. The guy not having a job is only half the economic effect of unemployment. The other half is the loss of the productive output that person would create if he were employed. It's that other half that actually increases the total size of our economy (ie: creates economic growth). If you stop and think about this, it should be obvious. We could end unemployment tomorrow by simply paying everyone to sit at home and do nothing. That would solve their own personal economic problems, right? But would this cause the economy to grow, or shrink?

Edited, Feb 22nd 2012 4:20pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#122 Feb 22 2012 at 10:44 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
7,468 posts
Quote:
The fallacy comes when you assume that since such spending *can* result in economic growth that it will *always* do so.


This fallacy also works in your paradigm of investing funds. I can rattle of a list of failed companies that received private investment too, generally these companies effect much more than just the people investing too.

Case in point the collapse of the Banking system in the US caused massive foreclosures, bankruptcies, massive layoffs, which resulted in an seemingly unending spiral of job loss, and the worst economic downturn since the 30's.

This was entirely the fault of the investment practices of the banking sector, and those who preformed those acts. (investment bankers, and private investors).

I would love for you to provide an example of a government (public funded) investment (or as you call it spending) that has resulted in any where close to the same type of catastrophic collapse that private investment has caused recently, and numerous times in the past.

The government has the power to provide benefits directly to investment opportunities, it is why the tech boom was so great in the late 90's early 00's, the major governments around the world provided large benefits to people exploring these new areas, and as such employment in these fields sky rocketed.

It is why Clinton had an unemployment rate of under 5% and a surplus at the end of his term. Bush decided that regulation should be dropped on these companies, and then we had the nortells, and enrons and subsequently the 2008 sh*tstorm.

Government investment will always be more stable, because the government can manipulate markets when ever it needs to adjust the balance.

(holy sh*t I just gbaji'd all over the place.)

Edited, Feb 23rd 2012 12:21am by rdmcandie
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

#123 Feb 23 2012 at 7:14 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,738 posts
rdmcandie wrote:
Quote:
The fallacy comes when you assume that since such spending *can* result in economic growth that it will *always* do so.


This fallacy also works in your paradigm of investing funds. I can rattle of a list of failed companies that received private investment too, generally these companies effect much more than just the people investing too.


Yes. Key point being "failed companies". What I'm trying to get you to see is that when the private market invests poorly, it fails. Companies which invest well, succeed. When a private employer hires someone and that person produces more value for him than it costs to hire him, the business succeeds. When he hires someone who costs him more than he's getting, the business fails (or has to lay off workers).

The private market provides a mechanism by which we can determine if what we're doing is creating more economic value than it costs, or not. While we can (and sometimes do) step in to adjust those outcomes, we always at least know when something isn't working. The public sector has no such mechanism. There is no immediate way to tell if we're overpaying the guy working the counter at the DMV, or if subsidies for "green energy" are costing us more than the benefits of the result.

That's why the idea of "investing" by spending more money with the government is questionable at best. In the private market, you know if your investment fails. In the public arena, it's much harder to tell. And frankly, since the government doesn't have to earn its money by producing greater value than it consumes, it can always cover for its failures by consuming more from the taxpayers. This results in even worse economic outcomes as we take from those parts which are successful (by definition, since we tax profits) and spend it on things which are almost certainly not.

Quote:
Case in point the collapse of the Banking system in the US caused massive foreclosures, bankruptcies, massive layoffs, which resulted in an seemingly unending spiral of job loss, and the worst economic downturn since the 30's.

This was entirely the fault of the investment practices of the banking sector, and those who preformed those acts. (investment bankers, and private investors).


I think at least a little fault has to lie with the government programs in place which created those investments, set up the loan requirements, funneled them through the GSE's ***** and freddie, then covered up the problems with those loans when questions started to be raised. Absent government intervention, the private market would *never* have created mortgage backed securities, and certainly would not have used the sort of bundling system that the government created, and absolutely would not have pushed ever more sub prime customers into the mix.


Want to know why? Because the private market is profit driven. The government is not. The problem arises when the government manipulates the market (like it did here) to make it social agenda appear to be profitable in the short term. That's when you get big collapses like we saw with the financial markets.

Quote:
I would love for you to provide an example of a government (public funded) investment (or as you call it spending) that has resulted in any where close to the same type of catastrophic collapse that private investment has caused recently, and numerous times in the past.


Um... The stimulus bills. Specifically Obama's recovery act? That has done massively greater harm to our economic outlook than the economic downturn which was used as the excuse to pass it in the first place. He certainly used the "investment" label many times in relation to that spending. It was a monumental waste of money, which has slowed economic recovery IMO.


So there's your example. Of course, as I mentioned earlier, we could also talk about the "investment" in housing by the government as a core cause of the initial financial meltdown in the first place.

Quote:
The government has the power to provide benefits directly to investment opportunities, it is why the tech boom was so great in the late 90's early 00's, the major governments around the world provided large benefits to people exploring these new areas, and as such employment in these fields sky rocketed.


Huh? Government providing seed grants for R&D is one thing, but direct investment? There was very very little of that during that time period, and it had very very little to do with the tech boom. Do you think that the US government was behind the rise of Microsoft, home computers, or the internet? It helped by creating an environment in which those things could happen (more directly in the case of the internet of course), but the explosion happened when government got the **** out of the way.

Quote:
It is why Clinton had an unemployment rate of under 5% and a surplus at the end of his term. Bush decided that regulation should be dropped on these companies, and then we had the nortells, and enrons and subsequently the 2008 sh*tstorm.


Um... That's not remotely what happened. Clinton's economy did benefit from the tech boom of the late 90s, but that had nearly nothing to do with Clinton era policies. It did create a bit of a bubble though, but that's a slightly different subject. Certainly, there was no guiding hand of the government leading all of that.

Quote:
Government investment will always be more stable, because the government can manipulate markets when ever it needs to adjust the balance.


This is what the Keynesian economic theorists tell themselves (and anyone else who'll listen). And while many of their theories do accurately predict outcomes, they don't actually allow for the sort of proactive control that the advocates try to claim. The problem is that those theories are based on "natural" market forces. The second you start using the government to manipulate things, those predictions stop working.


It's why the Obama administration predicted that summer 2010 would be the "summer of recovery", but it wasn't. They were looking at very consistent stable data sets which said that 2 years from the delta point on the unemployment line during an economic bubble crash, the unemployment numbers will turn around and recovery will be realized. His economic team could easily look at the factors in the economy and make that prediction. The problem is that they assumed this would happen *because* of their interaction, and didn't realize that their interaction (like the before mentioned stimulus bills) actually affected the economic reality and changed the result.

It's why we're still sitting nearly 2 years later waiting for recovery to happen. They use predictions which assume that you don't mess with the economy to justify messing with the economy, and then stand around confused when things don't work out the way they thought they would. Meanwhile, us silly uneducated conservatives tell them that it wont work, then when it doesn't work, we remind them that we told them it wouldn't work. Yet somehow we get ignored in all of this. Cause it's the liberals who know what they're doing, right?


Government is not the solution. Government is the problem.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#124 Feb 23 2012 at 8:56 PM Rating: Excellent
Prodigal Son
*****
19,979 posts
You don't think the economy is recovering?
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#125 Feb 23 2012 at 11:02 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
7,468 posts
Ill make this easy for you Gbaji.

Me: Private Investment was responsible for the 2008 GLOBAL Economic Meltdown.

Gbaji: Um... The stimulus bills. Specifically Obama's recovery act? That has done massively greater harm to our economic outlook than the economic downturn which was used as the excuse to pass it in the first place

GDP

I want you too look very closely at 2007 - 2011. See those bars below 0%, that is a GDP decline, see the bars that are above 0% That is a GDP growth.

unemployment

Again look closely at
DEC of 2007(5% 7.64M)
Dec of 2008 (7.3% 11.29M),
Dec of 2009 (9.9% 15.4M)
Dec of 2010 (9.4% 14.93M),
Dec of 2011 (8.3% 13.9M)

What this tells us is that the 2008 crisis caused by private investment mismanagement, cost the US GDP a 1% positive increase, and turned it into at its peak a 5% reduction, it also cost the jobs sector (which you claim is propped up by investment) nearly 8 million jobs at its peak.

The stimulus package, while increasing the debt of the nation, has provided at its current levels a 4% increase to GDP nearly rebounding to DEC 2007 levels. Since 2009 1.5 Million jobs have been created.

But I can see how you would misunderstand a 4% gain to GDP, and a 1.6% reduction to unemployment is on par with a 5% reduction to GDP, and a 4.9% increase to unemployment.

Want to take another swing?


Edited, Feb 24th 2012 12:03am by rdmcandie
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

#126 Feb 24 2012 at 12:49 AM Rating: Excellent
Everyone's Oiran
Avatar
*****
15,923 posts
I'm sure he will.

After all, apparently private business doesn't benefit and grow from a civil environment where the owners and workers can feel fairly secure in their physical safety and their rights as property owners being protected. And they don't benefit and prosper from better (faster and more reliable) transportation moving their goods, services and personnel around. And they don't do better with a more highly educated workforce and management. Or a more well workforce and management, where productivity isn't lost to so may sick days. And apparently productivity doesn't take a big hit from losing a worker with corporate knowledge pertaining to an individual business and its processes, to chronic illness, forcing the business to take in a new person with however many prior qualifications and experience, but who has to be trained to the unique processes, systems and knowledge bank of that particular corporation/small business.
____________________________
<3

http://www.reddit.com/r/Forum4/
#127 Feb 24 2012 at 1:40 AM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
7,468 posts
Well when Blogger27 tells Gbaji something is right, Gbaji believes it. He doesn't understand the cause/effect of half the **** he claims to. Then again he is 200 times more knowledgeable then me, so obviously I should reload this page a few more times so I can be told what kind of slippery slope I am on.


(buzz words are fun.)



____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

#128 Feb 24 2012 at 7:51 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Quote:
Um... The stimulus bills. Specifically Obama's recovery act? That has done massively greater harm to our economic outlook than the economic downturn which was used as the excuse to pass it in the first place.

Sure, when you get your economic information from Rush Limbaugh. Ask an economist and get a far different answer Smiley: smile
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#129 Feb 24 2012 at 8:13 AM Rating: Excellent
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,264 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Quote:
Um... The stimulus bills. Specifically Obama's recovery act? That has done massively greater harm to our economic outlook than the economic downturn which was used as the excuse to pass it in the first place.

Sure, when you get your economic information from Rush Limbaugh. Ask an economist and get a far different answer Smiley: smile

Bah, all those economists are liberal elites! They're in the Democrats back pocket, they only publish that stuff to get funding. It's like global warming, it's all a conspiracy!
____________________________
My Movember page
Solrain wrote:
WARs can use semi-colons however we want. I once killed a guy with a semi-colon.

LordFaramir wrote:
ODESNT MATTER CAUSE I HAVE ALCHOLOL IN MY VEINGS BETCH ;3
#130 Feb 24 2012 at 8:15 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,055 posts
Debalic wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Debalic wrote:
gbaji wrote:
First off, let me point out that most of the people who say they'd gladly pay higher taxes if they made twice as much money are really saying they want those people who make twice as much as they do to pay higher taxes. If they were actually making that much, they wouldn't say that. They'd still say that people making twice as much of them should pay a higher tax burden though. That's the consistency here, not that people are willing to trade one for the other.

Who, exactly, are these people?


What did you want? A list of names?

If you have them, sure. And also a reasoning behind how you know what these folk believe as opposed to what they say. Or do you have anything other than random conjecture?
♫It's a gbaji world, yeah, yeah, yeah..♫
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#131 Feb 24 2012 at 8:19 AM Rating: Good
******
43,913 posts
gbaji wrote:
What I'm trying to get you to see is that when the private market invests poorly, it fails.
Guess you haven't quite accepted that you can rarely get people to change their minds about something after all. Smiley: popcorn
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#132 Feb 24 2012 at 7:37 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,738 posts
Debalic wrote:
You don't think the economy is recovering?


Far far slower than it should. Far slower than every other recession we've had in the last 30+ years. As I stated earlier, the reason that the Dems labeled summer 2010 as the "summer of recovery" is because that's when we should have recovered. We didn't though. Even though TARP fixed the problems in the financial industry which were the lead cause of the economic downturn and there was no reason for this not to have caused a recovery at that point in time based on past recessionary patterns, we did not experience the same job growth in 2010 that we should have.

This had nothing to do with the original cause of the economic downturn and *everything* to do with poor decisions made in response to it. That blame says squarely on the massively oversized stimulus spending that Obama and the Dems choose to do.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#133 Feb 24 2012 at 8:13 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,738 posts
rdmcandie wrote:
Ill make this easy for you Gbaji.

Me: Private Investment was responsible for the 2008 GLOBAL Economic Meltdown.

Gbaji: Um... The stimulus bills. Specifically Obama's recovery act? That has done massively greater harm to our economic outlook than the economic downturn which was used as the excuse to pass it in the first place


Ok. That's simple I guess.

Quote:
GDP

I want you too look very closely at 2007 - 2011. See those bars below 0%, that is a GDP decline, see the bars that are above 0% That is a GDP growth.


While I'm not claiming it's a factor in this case, you shouldn't limit your analysis in such ways. Those bars could also represent changes in population. It is a "per-capita" measurement of GDP, right? Smiley: smile

But yes. I agree that GDP shrank in 2008, then shrank a lot more in 2009, then began growing in 2010. I do happen to think that's one of the poorer measurements to use though. If you'd like I'll explain to you why.

Regardless of that though, I'm not sure how this negates my argument. The biggest economic negatives occurred in 2009 *after* the stimulus bill was passed, and certainly after Obama won the White House, and the Dems won overwhelming control of both houses of Congress, and it was clear that they were going to pass some kind of really big spending bill.

My claim rests on the assumption that the greatest economic harm occurred because of the effect that overspending on "recovery" had on the choices that players in our economy made. This both deepened and lengthened the downturn. So far, the numbers you're showing me don't disprove that claim at all. I would expect to see exactly what we're seeing: Big negative in 2009 after the Dems won control of the government and embarked on that spending, then sluggish recovery after that point.

Quote:
unemployment

Again look closely at
DEC of 2007(5% 7.64M)
Dec of 2008 (7.3% 11.29M),
Dec of 2009 (9.9% 15.4M)
Dec of 2010 (9.4% 14.93M),
Dec of 2011 (8.3% 13.9M)

What this tells us is that the 2008 crisis caused by private investment mismanagement, cost the US GDP a 1% positive increase, and turned it into at its peak a 5% reduction, it also cost the jobs sector (which you claim is propped up by investment) nearly 8 million jobs at its peak.


Yeah. A peak which occurred *after* Obama started passing massive stimulus bills. Again, you're not disproving my claim at all. If anything, you're providing wonderful supporting evidence.

Quote:
The stimulus package, while increasing the debt of the nation, has provided at its current levels a 4% increase to GDP nearly rebounding to DEC 2007 levels. Since 2009 1.5 Million jobs have been created.


You're assuming causation though. The economy, absent any action other than TARP, would have experienced a greater and faster recovery. It's normal for economic forces to "bounce" after a downward trend. You need do nothing but fix whatever caused that downturn in the first place (and sometimes you don't need to do that). The idea that you attribute that bounce to Obama's stimulus bills is where you go off the rails. Go look at other recessions. Look at the early 00s (after the dot-com collapse). Look at the early/mid 90s (S&L crisis). Look at the early 80s. In each case you'll see about 100% of the losses in the first year and a half recover in the next year and a half. By the end of year four a typical recession cycle will not only have recovered to pre-recession levels, but be back on the trend that existed prior to that recession (so as though the recession didn't happen).

It's *normal* for that to happen. It's what has happened in the previous 3 recessions, none of which involved stimulus spending anywhere near the size of that passed in early 2009. Yet this time, we did spend massively and have experienced less relative recovery. The positive numbers you attribute to Obama's policies are less than we should have gotten if he'd not done a **** thing at all.


You can't just look at numbers in a vacuum. You need to compare them to other similar situations and see if what we're seeing is normal, below normal, or above normal. Again, let me point out that the Dems hyped 2010 as the summer of recovery because if our recovery had occurred like previous ones, that should have been the year we recovered. Instead, we're still just now starting to get some recovery nearly 2 years later. Obama doesn't get "credit" for this. He gets "blame".

Quote:
But I can see how you would misunderstand a 4% gain to GDP, and a 1.6% reduction to unemployment is on par with a 5% reduction to GDP, and a 4.9% increase to unemployment.


Um... Don't you recall Obama saying that if we didn't pass his recovery act, that unemployment would rise above 8%? That means that it was less than 8% when he was calling on people to pass it, right? And unemployment is *still* above 8% today.

How do you call that anything other than a failure?

Quote:
Want to take another swing?


Yeah. Just did. Even by Obama's own measurements, his recovery act failed. It failed to keep unemployment under 8%. It failed to produce the expected recovery in 2010. I suppose you could try to fall back on the "it would have been worse otherwise" argument, but you'd first need to abandon the ridiculous claim you're making that our recovery has been wonderful and just as promised/expected. It hasn't.

And if you do go to the "could have been worse" or "it was worse than we thought" argument, then you need to show why we should trust the very people who were so wrong about the economy back then to both know the right thing to do to fix it *and* to be able to accurately measure after the fact how much their actions actually blunted some newly imagined disaster which would have occurred otherwise.


At the end of the day, conservatives opposed passing Obama's stimulus plan for the exact reasons that ended out happening. It would scare away job growth make the recession deeper, and would slow down recovery. And even when we do finally recover, we'll then be burdened with massive debt that will have to be paid down somehow. They were right.

Edited, Feb 24th 2012 6:17pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#134 Feb 24 2012 at 8:45 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Quote:
The economy, absent any action other than TARP, would have experienced a greater and faster recovery.

You keep saying that but the majority of economists disagree with you. If I have to choose one, it won't be the IT tech with a chip on his shoulder about the president.
Quote:
By the end of year four a typical recession cycle...

Almost as though the 2008 financial collapse wasn't a "typical recession". Even then everyone knew it wasn't a "typical recession", hence the extraordinary measures taken by both parties to try to stop a complete dismantling of the economy.

Edited, Feb 24th 2012 8:48pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#135 Feb 24 2012 at 10:08 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,738 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Quote:
The economy, absent any action other than TARP, would have experienced a greater and faster recovery.

You keep saying that but the majority of economists disagree with you.


When did economics fact become decided by vote? And did we take a poll at some point? You say this, but it doesn't make my assessment wrong. There are plenty of economists who agree with me on this. Even if you don't agree with my argument that it hurt our economic recovery rather than helping it, you can't deny that the negative effect of the massive increase in debt that has resulted from that spending is causing problems and will continue to cause them for some time.

Quote:
If I have to choose one, it won't be the IT tech with a chip on his shoulder about the president.


Or you could expand your choices to include all the economists who agree with me. Of course, you'll dismiss them because they work at biased places like the cato institute or the heritage foundation. Circular argument, but you like going in circles.

Me. I look at who accurately predicted things. Everything that conservatives warned would happen if we passed the recovery act happened. Very few of the things that Obama promised would happen if we passed the recovery act happened (and we can make a case that those few things would have happened anyway). So where does that leave us?


Quote:
Quote:
By the end of year four a typical recession cycle...

Almost as though the 2008 financial collapse wasn't a "typical recession". Even then everyone knew it wasn't a "typical recession", hence the extraordinary measures taken by both parties to try to stop a complete dismantling of the economy.


Everyone? Who is everyone? I know that the liberal line on this is to insist that there was some unicorn like magical specialness to this recession so as to excuse the lack of recovery, but there really wasn't. It was larger than most, but that's it. What I find really amusing is the blatant rewriting of relatively recent history going on here. How can it be that "everyone knew it wasn't a typical recession", when it sure looks like no one on the Obama staff seemed to actually think that. Well, except when trying to scare people into supporting the recovery act, that is.

If they'd actually thought that the base condition was that bad, they'd have used a much higher unemployment figure than 8%. Their own excuse for being so wrong was that the economy was actually in much worse shape than they thought. But today "everyone knew" this? How can that be? It makes no sense.


You know what does make sense? That they didn't think the economy was in that bad a shape after TARP, that they did believe it would recover normally, and that they didn't think that unemployment would go much above 8% (if it even reached that point). I think they figured they could take advantage of the publics fear of the economic downturn to pass a laundry list of liberal social spending that they'd wanted for decades but had never been able to pass. I think they were so sure that the economy would recovery "normally", that they could get away with spending massive amounts of money in ways that had little or nothing to do with stimulus or recovery, and since the economy would recover anyway, they could claim that they were the ones who fixed it.


They were wrong, of course. But then, us conservatives knew that back then. We knew that spending so much money would hurt the economy and drag out the recovery. And we were right. No amount of changing the words after the fact changes the fact the the GOP predictions were correct and the Dem predictions were wrong. But despite this, you still want to go to the same source that was wrong last time and repeat their new spin?


Have fun with that. I'll stick with looking at the actual world around me and basing my opinions on that.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#136 Feb 24 2012 at 10:31 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
7,468 posts
Quote:
Yeah. Just did. Even by Obama's own measurements, his recovery act failed. It failed to keep unemployment under 8%. It failed to produce the expected recovery in 2010. I suppose you could try to fall back on the "it would have been worse otherwise" argument, but you'd first need to abandon the ridiculous claim you're making that our recovery has been wonderful and just as promised/expected. It hasn't.


I didn't say it has been all rainbows and sunshine. I asked you to provide me with an example of Government Investment (or Public Spending as you call it) that had the same negative effect as the failed Private Investment initiatives that resulted in the 2008 melt down.

You chose to use the stimulus spending as that example. An example which has had a net positive effect to the overall economy (however small it may be a positive is larger than a negative.) You are the one who chose to compare a 4% increase to GDP, and a 1.6% reduction to unemployment to a 5% decrease to GDP and a near doubling of the unemployment rate.

So would you like to take another swing at providing an example of Government Investment costing the US populus 8 million jobs and 700B from the GDP?

I bet you can't. In fact I know you can't because the only other time something had this type of negative impact on the economy was in 1929, and was the result of Private Investment mismanagement.

____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

#137 Feb 24 2012 at 10:41 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
When did economics fact become decided by vote?

The day it was declared a soft science rather than a hard one.

Quote:
Or you could expand your choices to include all the economists who agree with me.

I could. But if I'm expanding my choices to include them, why not go for the majority of the economists which puts me back where I was?

Quote:
Of course, you'll dismiss them because they work at biased places like the cato institute or the heritage foundation.

How's that 2.5% unemployment rate and $89 billion construction boom going? Smiley: laugh

Quote:
Everyone? Who is everyone?

Did you sleep through October and November 2008?

Quote:
basing my opinions on that.

So long as it's understood that "The economy, absent any action other than TARP, would have experienced a greater and faster recovery" was just your uninformed and minority opinion, that's fine Smiley: smile
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#138 Feb 24 2012 at 10:50 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
7,468 posts
Quote:
Or you could expand your choices to include all the economists who agree with me.


A blogger writing about his opinion on the economy is not an economist.
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

#139 Feb 24 2012 at 11:10 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
He has some guys from right-wing think tanks!

To dismiss their opinion is equivalent to dismissing economists working in the private financial sector because those guys are all "the same people who said 8%!". All of them. Even people who didn't work with the president. Even people who were economic advisors to McCain's campaign against Obama. They're all leftist shills with Big Government liberal agendas who are wrong, wrong, wrong.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#140 Feb 24 2012 at 11:58 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
7,468 posts
So you mean the same guys who promoted TARP and then again backed the 2009 ARRA?

(just want to be on the same page.)
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

#141 Feb 27 2012 at 5:41 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,738 posts
rdmcandie wrote:
Quote:
Yeah. Just did. Even by Obama's own measurements, his recovery act failed. It failed to keep unemployment under 8%. It failed to produce the expected recovery in 2010. I suppose you could try to fall back on the "it would have been worse otherwise" argument, but you'd first need to abandon the ridiculous claim you're making that our recovery has been wonderful and just as promised/expected. It hasn't.


I didn't say it has been all rainbows and sunshine. I asked you to provide me with an example of Government Investment (or Public Spending as you call it) that had the same negative effect as the failed Private Investment initiatives that resulted in the 2008 melt down.


And I did just that.

Quote:
You chose to use the stimulus spending as that example. An example which has had a net positive effect to the overall economy (however small it may be a positive is larger than a negative.) You are the one who chose to compare a 4% increase to GDP, and a 1.6% reduction to unemployment to a 5% decrease to GDP and a near doubling of the unemployment rate.


You apparently don't know what the term "net" means here. Net means "after accounting for other factors". So net revenue is revenue left over after you've subtracted your expenses. Similarly, in order to declare that the stimulus bills had a "net positive effect", you'd need to know what the outcome would have been if we hadn't passed those bills. And that's somewhat subjective, isn't it? I say that the economy would not have gotten as bad as it did (looking mostly at employment here), and would have recovered much more quickly absent the stimulus bills and all the debt they heaped onto our economy. I believe that those bills had a net negative. My entire argument is about how the effect was negative on net.

You need to counter with something more than just insisting that they were a net positive. I get that you disagree with me, but simply repeating the disagreement doesn't actually help support your position. Why do you think that spending was a net positive?

Quote:
So would you like to take another swing at providing an example of Government Investment costing the US populus 8 million jobs and 700B from the GDP?


You're being selective though. Economic fortunes go up and down. The always have. You're choosing to focus on one short time period in which private investments failed badly, and resulted in lots of lost revenue and jobs. But we're talking about "net economic effect", right? So shouldn't we also look at all of the years in which private investments produced massive and consistent economic gains?

If, as a result of our profit driven financial banking system, we experience an average of 4.5% GDP growth, and sub-5% unemployment for 10 years, but then we have two years where GDP drops slightly negative and employment pops up a few percent, are we better or worse off "on net" over that period of time? Would it be better to accept a lower average GDP growth, and higher average unemployment on the promise that by curbing said investment, we'll limit the likelihood and degree of the bad times?


That's basically the argument you are supporting. But the problem is that no government system has ever shown an ability to actually prevent the downturns by curbing private investment and shifting that money into government spending programs. Countries that do that still experience periods of negative growth and recession. So there's no real gain (over time) to doing that. However, there is a real and measurable cost. Economies which do that tend to have higher unemployment on average, and they tend to have less upward mobility within their economies on average, and they tend to be less able to bounce back when those downturns occur.


So yeah. On net, it's better to leave that money in the hands of private investors.

Quote:
I bet you can't. In fact I know you can't because the only other time something had this type of negative impact on the economy was in 1929, and was the result of Private Investment mismanagement.


Said like someone too young to remember the 70s. That was the decade of big government management of our economy. It was a failed experiment. We lurched from one recession to the next, each caused by the "fix" to the last, and each having progressively worse negative economic effects. By the end of the 70s, we had double digit inflation, double digit interest rates, and incredibly anemic GDP growth. Our economy was basically stuck in the mud, spinning its tires. It wasn't until Reagan came along, told us that "government is the problem" and started implementing policies designed to get the government out of the economic micromanagement business that things recovered (and quickly too). There were a few years of pain, but it turned out he was right, and we proceeded to have 15 years of record prosperity as a result.


Most of the posters on this forum are too young to have known a US economy which wasn't influenced by Reagan's policies back in the early 80s. You've lived your whole lives thinking that 5% GDP growth, 5% unemployment, 4-5% interest rates, and 3% inflation rates were "normal". So you accept when people tell you that there's something wrong with conservative economic policies. You willingly focus on the minor negatives of the free market, while not realizing the enormous positives that occur as well. You think that there's no cost to restricting that market for some direct government plan or program, because you think that our economy works as well as it does regardless of that free market component. You think that Clinton had anything at all to do with the economic boom in the 90s. And you think that the free market somehow failed us during the 00s.


You're wrong though. Obama's economic policies are a throwback to the same sorts of things we tried back in the 60s and 70s. They were a disaster then, and they'll be equally disastrous this time around. The difference is that most voters have forgotten (or never knew) just how bad things can be when those policies are in operation. The sluggish recovery we've seen over the last few years is just the tip of the iceberg. Things will get worse, much much worse, if we continue down the road that Obama is taking us.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#142 Feb 27 2012 at 5:58 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
7,468 posts
Since the stimulus unemployment has gone down, and GDP has gone up. That is a positive and your economy is growing. The 2008 cluster@#%^ reduced your economy. I am not discussing the ifs caused by imaginary situations, I am discussing actual documented and occurring situations. So try again.

Quote:
You're wrong though. Obama's economic policies are a throwback to the same sorts of things we tried back in the 60s and 70s. They were a disaster then, and they'll be equally disastrous this time around. The difference is that most voters have forgotten (or never knew) just how bad things can be when those policies are in operation.


They were a disaster because your country propped its economy up on a sh*tty war and when support for the war ended so did the economy. Kinda like the recent Bush economy. Granted the lack of oversight caused this one to be much worse then the minor slide through the mid 70s - mid 80's. Mostly due to the fact that the slide in the 70's was contained mostly in NA, unlike the recent recession which effected the entire world economically.

So again, please elaborate on a spending program that (any) government has undertaken that has caused a similar collapse of the economy. (and again I know you can't because the only other one of similar significance was the Market Crash of 1929, which was a result of poor investment and investment oversight.)

Swing away.

Edited, Feb 27th 2012 6:59pm by rdmcandie
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

#143 Feb 27 2012 at 7:38 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,738 posts
rdmcandie wrote:
Since the stimulus unemployment has gone down, and GDP has gone up.


Over what time period though? Can we agree that given sufficient time the GDP and unemployment figures would have improved? Remember, GDP was negative around the time period when the stimulus bills were being passed. It was going to get better, stimulus bill or not. You're trying to give credit to the stimulus, without any rational for it. As I've said repeatedly, I can just as easily argue that the economy would have recovered as well (or better!) had we not passed the stimulus bill(s) at all. And we'd have a lot less debt.

You're also simply factually wrong about unemployment. Unemployment in February 2009 (when the recovery act was signed into law), was 8.3%. It has only just this month gone back down to that level. It has been higher than that the entire time between that passing and this month. So arguing that the stimulus bill made the unemployment rate go down is pretty far fetched. I would argue (and do) that it made the unemployment number go up, and that we're only just now recovering from the harm done to our economy by the Recovery Act.

Quote:
That is a positive and your economy is growing.


Something it would have done anyway. What you have failed to even remotely come close to arguing is that the stimulus bills actually had any positive effect on that recovery at all. We can say that they increased our deficit. That is not in doubt. And that increased deficit *is* causing us economic problems. That is also not in doubt. So in order to counter the known negatives of that spending, you'd need to show some irrefutable proof of positive economic effects from the stimulus spending. But you haven't done that.

All you can do (all anyone can do) is plaintively insist that "it would have been worse". But the problem is that is you can't possibly actually measure the supposed positive effect of stimulus because you can't accurately say what the economy would have done absent the spending. Let's not forget that the Obama economic team completely failed to assess what the economy would do on it's own. They have to have. As I argued earlier, if they'd been able to accurately predict both the natural course of the economy *and* the effect the stimulus spending would have, then they would not have made such a horribly wrong prediction regarding the effect on unemployment.


After having gotten it so completely and demonstrably wrong back then, we're now supposed to trust them when they claim that things really were worse than they thought, and that instead of their recovery act making things better, as they predicted, it only managed to prevent some much much worse outcome? Why should we believe that? How can they possibly be trusted to make that claim, much less their assessments about jobs "created or saved" during that time period?


Isn't it possible that the initial estimates of the economic effects of the downturn were accurate? And instead of it actually being worse than they thought, what happened is that just as us conservatives predicted, the stimulus spending actually made things worse? Can't you even consider the possibility? Again, let's not forget that when the Dems were arguing for their stimulus bill(s), they were arguing "spend this and things will get better", while the GOP argued "if we spend this, things will get worse".


Weren't the GOP right? We spend that money, and things got worse. Maybe we should give a bit of credence to the guys who were right, and a heavy dose of skepticism to the guys who were wrong? Just a thought!

Quote:
The 2008 cluster@#%^ reduced your economy. I am not discussing the ifs caused by imaginary situations, I am discussing actual documented and occurring situations. So try again.


Try what again? Your argument makes no sense. There was no unemployment gain from the stimulus spending (and arguable a lot of loss). And GDP was at a low point. There was nearly no way to prevent it from coming back up. Taking credit for that is pretty ridiculous.

Quote:
They were a disaster because your country propped its economy up on a sh*tty war and when support for the war ended so did the economy. Kinda like the recent Bush economy. Granted the lack of oversight caused this one to be much worse then the minor slide through the mid 70s - mid 80's. Mostly due to the fact that the slide in the 70's was contained mostly in NA, unlike the recent recession which effected the entire world economically.


I'm kinda speechless here. This paragraph alone displays such a clear lack of understanding about the economics of the US in the 70s that it's hard to know where to start. Some serious revisionism there though, with the whole "economy proposed up on a war" bit. Really? You honestly think that the US economy was tied to Viet Nam? That's... insane.

Quote:
So again, please elaborate on a spending program that (any) government has undertaken that has caused a similar collapse of the economy.


I've already done so. The stimulus policies of the Obama administration caused more economic harm than the banking crisis which was used to justify it. Long after the banks have recovered, and long after the GDP rates go back up, and long after unemployment numbers return to normal, we will still be suffering negative economic effects from that spending. You're looking at the short term costs of a single economic downturn. But they happen, pretty much no matter what we do. And we tend to recover from them, also pretty much no matter what we do. But if we overreact to such things, and create a huge amount of new areas where we spend money, that cost will stay with us long after the initial need used to justify them has disappeared.

We nearly *never* eliminate social spending programs. The best way to limit their cost is therefore to not create them in the first place. The whole purpose of the Obama stimulus spending wasn't to fix the economic problems of the day, but to put that spending into place, knowing that it would become long term spending. There's a reason why that spending was focused on social stuff which the Dems have wanted for decades and not so much on actual stimulus.


You honestly can't see how some program that spends money over 10 years, or which doesn't start spending money for a couple years, or some combination of those two, can't possibly ever actually cause a stimulus effect for the economy? The only thing it'll do is weigh the economy down with debt. And that's *exactly* what that spending did. It's why our recovery has been so sluggish compared with other recessions.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#144 Feb 27 2012 at 7:53 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
7,468 posts
You said a bunch of sh*t so we are going back to easy mode.


Did the economy not collapse worldwide following investment errors in the US banking system
Yes. or No.

Has the economy not improved since the TARP and ARRA (both being sizeable economic stimlus packages).
Yes. or No.

(also the word Since implies after, maybe Alma can lend you his flashcards when he is done with them)

Now you claimed spending caused the same events as the 2008 Subprime investment collapse did. Just link me to something that the government has done that did something similar.

That is it, show me a period where the economy of the USA reduced by a similar amount as 2008 as a result of a spending program. Thats all I want you to do, I don't need another story.

**** at this point ill even accept a link to a blog.


Quote:

Long after the banks have recovered,


nvm found my answer. How the **** do you think the banks recovered.

Edited, Feb 27th 2012 8:56pm by rdmcandie
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

#145 Feb 27 2012 at 8:38 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,738 posts
rdmcandie wrote:
You said a bunch of sh*t so we are going back to easy mode.


Did the economy not collapse worldwide following investment errors in the US banking system
Yes. or No.


Yes. But you're leaving out cause. As I already stated, those "errors" were directly caused by our government meddling in the housing market in order to make it look like poor people were able to afford to own homes, and then passed the cost of that meddling into the financial investment market via investment instruments they created and laundered through the GSEs.

Quote:
Has the economy not improved since the TARP and ARRA (both being sizeable economic stimlus packages).
Yes. or No.


That depends on what you mean by "improved"? Also, you're lumping two different things here. TARP and ARRA were completely different types of spending bills. Let's look at just ARRA (and other similar spending bills passed by the Dems and Obama). No one's debating TARP, so lets set that aside for the moment.

I don't think the economy has improved. Our GDP is better, yes. Unemployment is still high (and went higher after ARRA was passed). There's certainly no indication that ARRA had any positive effect on either of those. But the negative is the massive debt. That can be directly attributed to ARRA (and other stimulus spending during that time period). That is today having a huge negative effect on our economy.

Let me ask you a question: Do you think that lack of investment capital in the financial markets is today responsible for our high unemployment and sluggish economy? Or do you think that the biggest economic problem in the US right now is our massive deficit? Do you think that maybe the looming fear of higher taxes might just have a lot more to do with todays sluggish economy?


I think the answer is obvious, but I'd love to hear your answer.

Quote:
(also the word Since implies after, maybe Alma can lend you his flashcards when he is done with them)


Yes. I'm well aware of the "after/because" fallacy. Neither of those words mean "because". You are not arguing causation, but merely the order two things happened relative to each other. Just because something happened "after" something else, does not mean that it happened "because" of that other thing. It's common to use the "after" language though, because it allows one to imply causation, without actually making a statement which is factually incorrect.

In other words, it's a formation people use when they want to be deceptive.

Quote:
Now you claimed spending caused the same events as the 2008 Subprime investment collapse did. Just link me to something that the government has done that did something similar.


No. I'm claiming that the stimulus spending passed in 2009 caused *different* events (effects would be the word I'd use), than the 2008 subprime investment collapse did.

The subprime collapse caused investments in the financial industry to suddenly lose value. Which left banks with insufficient capital to operate properly, which in turn affected all parts of the economy they interacted with. Without going into detail, this was "bad", but ultimately could be fixed by simply loaning money to the affected parts of the financial industry.

The stimulus spending spent massive amounts of money (and committed to future spending of yet more massive amounts). The spending itself is harmful because it lumped a ton of debt onto an economy that was struggling to recover. It also included mostly social spending rather than economically focused spending. That combined with constant rhetoric about raising taxes on the rich and big businesses, affected spending/investment choices by the very groups we most needed to jump back into the ring with their money once the banks recovered.


I don't know how to more clearly explain this to you. I really don't. The recovery act was exactly the wrong sort of spending at exactly the wrong time. If you accept that the economic downturn was caused by big banks and investors losing money, why assume that threatening those same people with higher taxes wont hurt the recovery? You need investors to put their money back into those very areas where we lost money before. But the recovery act hurt that.

And the debt alone is bad too.

Quote:
That is it, show me a period where the economy of the USA reduced by a similar amount as 2008 as a result of a spending program. Thats all I want you to do, I don't need another story.


Are you stupid? You already did this. Unemployment was worse *after* the recovery act was passed then it was during the height of the economic downturn. GDP growth was anemic at best during that time period as well. I keep explaining this to you, but instead of responding to my explanation, you keep re-asking the same question.

Let me be absolutely clear: Our economy tanked the most *after* Obama took office than it did before. And I believe that much of that was because of his economic policies, specifically the massive spending his party embarked on. If we had just passed TARP and nothing more, I don't think unemployment would have even hit 8%. I think that GDP recovery would have occurred a full quarter earlier. I think that the markets would have recovered much faster and continued recovering.


The real evidence is not in the quick up/down numbers immediately during/after the actual official recessionary period. It's in the sluggish recovery after that point. That's where the overspending has had its effect. And when you measure that compared to what the economy should have done, it ends out being much much much worse than the original economic collapse. At the time TARP was passed, almost no one outside the financial and housing markets had been directly affected by the collapse. With the passage of TARP, this should have stayed contained within those markets with a small amount of trickle into other industries.

It was because of the spending that other areas of the economy, which should not have been affected by the economic downturn at all, began under performing. Most directly, they began hiring freezes, not because business was bad, but because the spending would need to be paid for, and they would be the ones to pay.

Quote:
**** at this point ill even accept a link to a blog.


Lol. How about just plain logic? We've already talked about the GDP and employment numbers. We presumably agree on the numbers themselves. Why do you need someone else to tell you what they mean?


Quote:
Quote:

Long after the banks have recovered,


nvm found my answer. How the @#%^ do you think the banks recovered.


Um... Because they have? Because those banks directly affected by the downturn in 2008 which didn't go bankrupt had more or less completely recovered (and paid back the TARP money) by early 2010? Every part of the economy *except* employment has recovered. GDP is still anemic, but that's largely because of the bad employment figures.

Do I need to link to some source showing this? I thought this was understood as a given. It's not like anyone's been calling for bailouts for our struggling banking industry for the last few years. This is why I keep saying that TARP fixed the actual problem. ARRA (and others) created a new problem. And that problem has been far more harmful to most people than the original financial collapse was.

****, most people's 401k's have completely recovered their lost value as well. Seriously. Have you actually looked at the financial stats lately? Everything is doing well except the actual employment and production. And that isn't because of the financial collapse back in 2008. It can't be. There's no logical reason for the banks and markets to recover, but for unemployment to still be so high and production so low.


There is, however, a very logical explanation for why companies might be producing less in the US *and* hiring less in the US. Could have to do with massive debt. It could have to do with a health care bill that's going to increase cost of employment. It could also have to do with eternally extended unemployment benefits which make it hard to hire people in certain salary ranges. And it could have to do with payroll tax cuts which have the effect of foisting *more* of the cost of employment onto the employer.


All of those things are direct results of Obama spending polices. That's why the economy is doing so poorly today. Has nothing to do with the collapse in 2008. That is over. It has been for at least two full years now. We should be fully recovered right now. Instead, we're no where near it. And that's the fault of the spending spree the Dems went on when they found themselves in control of both houses of congress, the white house, and a convenient economic crisis they could take advantage of in order to scare people into letting them do it.


Are you arguing that we're still suffering some direct economic effects from 2008? Where? What? How? That makes no sense at all.

Edited, Feb 27th 2012 6:46pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#146 Feb 27 2012 at 8:45 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
7,468 posts
Quote:
Are you arguing that we're still suffering some direct economic effects from 2008? Where? What? How? That makes no sense at all.


Right because the last time the banking sector went tits up it didn't take nearly a decade to bounce back.

Still waiting on that governemnt spending that cost 8 million jobs and 700billion dollars from the GDP btw. (if you can find one.)
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

#147 Feb 27 2012 at 9:04 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,738 posts
rdmcandie wrote:
Quote:
Are you arguing that we're still suffering some direct economic effects from 2008? Where? What? How? That makes no sense at all.


Right because the last time the banking sector went tits up it didn't take nearly a decade to bounce back.


No, it didn't. I assume you're speaking of the economic recession caused by the S&L crisis in the early 90s? Funny that this was just a few years before the big economic boom of the late 90s. Clearly, it did not take a decade for our economy to recover from that. But then, we didn't embark on massive social spending to fix the symptoms of the problem.


Or were you referring to the Great Depression and pretending there have been no financial sector caused recessions since then? Want to know what our current economic condition has in common with the Great Depression? They tried to fix the economic problems with massive social spending programs back then too. And we conservatives today argue that it was because of that spending that it took a decade for the economy to recover (and it never really did until the post-WW2 period).


So imagine us making the same argument today when Obama proposes that we embark on massive social spending right after a financial collapse caused recession? Surely you can see why some of us might raise our hands and point out that this didn't work out so well back in 1929, so maybe we should avoid it this time around. You honestly don't see the pattern here? This "Great Recession" (as some are calling it) is so not because of the financial problems, but because of the similarly stupid social spending response causing horrible economic effects far out of scale with the original problem.

Quote:
Still waiting on that governemnt spending that cost 8 million jobs and 700billion dollars from the GDP btw. (if you can find one.)



It's the same one you're pointing to. The problem is that you keep attributing the ongoing costs and deficits and anemic GDP growth to the initial financial problems back in 2008. I'm attributing those losses to the spending by the Dems in the name of "recovery" in 2009. When you add up the debt incurred because of that spending, it's massively more than the losses from the economic downturn itself.

****. If you want, I'll show you CBO numbers proving that 60% of our deficit increase over time period the between 2007 and 2010 has come in the form of increased spending and *not* decreased revenue. And if you want, I'll show how about half of the decreased revenue during 2009 and 2010 was actually spending from ARRA (in the form of tax credits).

I don't have the time to quote the relevant numbers and do the math right now, but I've posted this information in past threads. The numbers don't lie. The direct economic effect (at least in terms of government revenue and debt) from the economic downturn wasn't that large. The effect from spending increases and other stimulus related things has been massive.


Most of the negatives you attribute to the 2008 financial collapse are actually the result of the spending polices of the Dems in 2009. You just choose to pretend that the spending didn't have any harmful effects. But it clearly did. If we're going to count GDP, shouldn't we also count spending which consumes that GDP as well? You want to talk about $700B in lost GDP because of a downturn, but don't want to look at $3-$4 trillion dollars in increased spending during that same time period.


Guess what? One of those massively outweighs the other. And the financial downturn didn't have anything to do with the increased federal spending. That was a decision made by the Democrats when they took power in 2009.

Edited, Feb 27th 2012 7:21pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#148 Feb 27 2012 at 10:34 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
7,468 posts
Quote:
No, it didn't. I assume you're speaking of the economic recession caused by the S&L crisis in the early 90s?


Im talking about the great depression you ****** you know the only event in world economic history that exceeded the reductions caused by the 2008 Market collapses that is still very much ongoing, especially in Europe.

Quote:
I don't have the time to quote the relevant numbers and do the math right now, but I've posted this information in past threads.


Smiley: laugh

one link it is all I ask. Just one link to show a governemnt spending program that resulted in the same type of economic collapse.

Shouldn't take that long if its so obvious.

Quote:
You just choose to pretend that the spending didn't have any harmful effects. But it clearly did. If we're going to count GDP, shouldn't we also count spending which consumes that GDP as well? You want to talk about $700B in lost GDP because of a downturn, but don't want to look at $3-$4 trillion dollars in increased spending during that same time period.


So 700B downturn + 4Trillion Spending = 560Billion net GDP growth. your point is?

Edited, Feb 27th 2012 11:39pm by rdmcandie
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

#149 Feb 27 2012 at 11:13 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
*****
11,993 posts
Quote:
I'm talking about the great depression you ****** you know the only event in world economic history that exceeded the reductions caused by the 2008 Market collapses that is still very much ongoing, especially in Europe.


Recent history? Maybe. World economic history? No.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#150 Feb 28 2012 at 9:01 AM Rating: Excellent
Everyone's Oiran
Avatar
*****
15,923 posts
gbaji wrote:
Are you arguing that we're still suffering some direct economic effects from 2008? Where? What? How? That makes no sense at all.

And here is the proof that no-one, let alone yourself, should listen to you on any opinion you have on economics AT ALL.

Unless you go back to school and take a mixed economics and humanities degree that covers History and Logic.

Why do you think some Asian governments have "25 year plans" that cover periods of time when they KNOW they'll be long out of power? Because they know the actions they take now will still have economic and social consequences rippling down in 25 years and beyond.

Edited, Feb 28th 2012 10:03am by Aripyanfar
____________________________
<3

http://www.reddit.com/r/Forum4/
#151 Feb 28 2012 at 8:12 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,738 posts
rdmcandie wrote:
Quote:
No, it didn't. I assume you're speaking of the economic recession caused by the S&L crisis in the early 90s?


Im talking about the great depression you ****** you know the only event in world economic history that exceeded the reductions caused by the 2008 Market collapses that is still very much ongoing, especially in Europe.


So you're talking about something you didn't reference? You said something about the last time the banking industry went tits up. And that was (in the US at least) in the early 90s with the S&L crisis). Heck. Technically, we might even look at the dot.com bubble collapse and financial hit from 9/11 as well, but that was more of a general market collapse rather than banking specific.

You're trying to wiggle the definitions to make your starting assumptions true. The reality though is that we've had a number of banking crises and semi-collapses since the Great Depression. Most of them have required nothing more than some quick loans to the banking industry to prevent collapse and ensure recovery. See. Cause banks tend to make money over time absent a current collapse condition. Fix the condition, the banks recover, and you get your money back.


What causes an economic crisis to turn into a "Great <whatever>", is when liberal governments attempt to spend their way out of the crisis. That usually creates a new problem which is much worse than the initial crisis. That's what happened in the Great Depression, and that's what's happening now.

Quote:
one link it is all I ask. Just one link to show a governemnt spending program that resulted in the same type of economic collapse.


You need a link to the ARRA wiki page? What would that accomplish? Do you think there exists some authoritarian source that you and I would both accept which would definitively state that "The recovery act caused more economic harm than the sub-prime mortgage collapse it was passed to help correct"? Of course there isn't. There isn't one that'll say the opposite either btw. So jumping up and down and demanding a source for an opinion of the relative effect of the recovery act is pointless.


I could just as easily demand that you provide a source proving that the mortgage collapse itself was more harmful than the stimulus bills passed by the Dems in 2009. Can you do that? With a source that I would accept? Of course not. So how about instead of demanding something that is useless, you actually engage your own brain and defend your own position?

That would be novel!

Quote:
Shouldn't take that long if its so obvious.


Ok. fine. There. I've provided you with a link to a government spending program which resulted in greater economic harm than the sub-prime mortgage collapse. See how that's useless? I believe it's more harmful. You disagree with me. How the **** does me just linking to it accomplish anything?

Sigh...

Quote:
So 700B downturn + 4Trillion Spending = 560Billion net GDP growth. your point is?


Now subtract the debt. Do you see the point yet? You're like someone who realizes that his monthly bills exceed his income by $100/month, so he just puts the extra on a credit card instead of reducing his expenses. Then he declares that he's fixed his budget problem!

Dumb. Dumb. Dumb. The long term effect of that spending will make that short term loss of economic activity during the actual recession resulting from the subprime mortgage crisis seem like a tiny little speed bump to our economy. You honesty don't realize this? Economic fortunes go up and down all the time. They tend to wash out over time and should only require the smallest amount of action to deal with them when they occur. Long term spending trends will massively dwarf those effects over time.


Increasing our federal spending from around 20% of GDP to around 25% is a significant increase. If we don't cut that spending, the long term effects will be incredibly huge. I just don't know how many different ways I can say this so that you might just understand one of them. If I increase spending by $700B/year every year from now until the end of time, the total negative effect on the economy will be much much larger than a one time loss of $700B over the course of a couple years. Surely, you can see this.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 85 All times are in CDT