The Tea Party... - Page 5 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Baraka_Guru · 09-25-2010, 06:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by robot_parade

The free market is a great thing, but far from perfect. It's short-sighted as hell, and open to manipulation by powerful players (monopolies, for instance).

Obviously a 'planned' economy doesn't work, but neither does a completely free market.

The concept of a free market is great in that it looks great as a philosophy rooted in absolute economic freedom. As you point out, it's short-sighted, but for reasons more than problems of monopolies. There are other issues such as global trade and the desire to instill protectionist measures to favour domestic industry.

Problems arise too with planned economies, especially the most absolute of these, being command economies. The way to look at it is that lassez-faire is the absolute state of a free market and a command economy is the absolute state of a planned economy.

There are historical examples that people often cite when pointing out the failures or the impractical aspects of command economies. The most-cited example is communism under the Soviet Union. A better example, in my opinion, is China, who moved away from communism towards a mixed economy when faced with the realities of global trade.

Because that's what it usually comes down to: mixed economies are the norm, and are generally considered the best approach to economic policy.

People don't often consider that there were near attempts at lassez-faire in places like 19th-century Europe and the U.S. There was a revolutionary shift after the early development of capitalism, the eventual demise of mercantilism, and the response to the publication of Smith's Wealth of Nations.

However, the 19th century in America produced an environment of robber barons, which in a sense meant entire industries consisting of monopolies and oligopolies, and not exactly of the natural kind but rather of the coercive kind that prevented new entrants to the market. It was a highly uncompetitive situation that would devastate our current antitrust sensitivities.

But in the end, it didn't matter. After the American Civil War, new protectionist and regulatory measures were enacted to stabilize the economy, as well as an income tax to help pay for infrastructure, etc. That in addition to public pressure for labour rights and freedoms lead to what we know today to make up the American economy: a decidedly mixed economy.

There is no such thing as an absolute free market. If you look at the history of economics, it has never existed. It could be argued that it's even less viable than communism---which is interesting, mainly because of the panic of the Tea Partiers when Obama uses the tools of a mixed economy. They fear a slide into communism when the issue is, in fact, a reaction to the policies that would sooner have had that pipe dream of the wealthy: a lassez-faire ~~Shangri-La~~ America.

Tully Mars · 09-25-2010, 08:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dogzilla

Really? Then just where do you think these new millionaires come from? Is it some kind of miracle where each day a bunch of newly created millionaires just pops into existence?

---------- Post added at 01:02 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:43 PM ----------

Well, it's not completely false. I've managed to improve my lifestyle significantly. Not to be a millionaire, but enough for what I want. I have friends and family who have done likewise. People have started companies on a shoestring and done really well. People have become millionaires by working for companies like Google and Microsoft.

On the other hand, I don't hear too much about people living on government assistance ever improving their lifestyle much. Maybe because there's no incentive for a government program to become successful because then a bunch of government bureaucrats might lose their jobs.

I'll take my chances with capitalism over liberal or socialist handout programs any day.

Well Criag T. Nelson's done pretty well for himself and even though he states "I was on walfare, I was on food stamps... no one ever helped me out." I'd call all that government help. I think by reading your post you seem to think once someone is being assisted by the government it's a life long thing. That happens I'm sure but I've known a lot of people over the years that have ended up on a social program and worked their way to being independent.

I look at it as a hand up not a hand out and if the tea party folks get their way there will be no more hand ups. The result will be families, possibly endless generations of, people living in absolute poverty.

Also when you say "I'll take my chances with capitalism over liberal or socialist handout programs any day." Why does it have to be an either or situation? The US has always been a mix to some degree for well over 100 years. Why all the black and white, all or nothing mind set?

aceventura3 · 09-27-2010, 09:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pig

I believe that Tesla employs less than 1000. Therefore, my point was that making an apples to apples comparison of the two isn't really viable (which you might agree with, but it did seem you were trying to do so), and Tesla is actually partnering with larger vehicle manufacturers such as Mercedes/Daimler and Toyota.

The probability of GM growing by a factor of 50 is close to zero. The probability of a company like Telsa Motors growing by a factor of 50 or more given where they are today is much greater than GM doing it. Our government gives favorable treatment to GM, hurting a company like Telsa Motors in the process.

Is that a proper role of government? I say no.

---------- Post added at 05:03 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:56 PM ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pearl Trade

Ace, I think you also need to know that demand is not only wanting a product, but also having the money to buy it. Like this: I want a Ferrari, but I don't have the money to buy one. My demand for a Ferrari is zero.

Innovation has always come before major standard of living improvements.

Given the innovation in the auto industry, the actual gap in useful performance between the car you drive and a Ferrari is small. In fact depending on the performance measurement there are vehicles that can out perform Farrari's for 1/10 the cost.

Another way to look at this is that the car you can afford to buy today, is most likely a better vehicle than a Ferrari was 25 years ago. You can want a Ferrari or you can want Ferrari performance, there is a difference - and one can be very affordable the other not.

---------- Post added at 05:09 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:03 PM ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by robot_parade

I'm confused about which actions of the government you're complaining about exactly...

Would you prefer if the government had let GM fail? Ok, that's a valid position to take. I would argue that, by temporarily propping up GM, the government helped stabilize the economy, by avoiding the effects of GM going bankrupt (thousands of layoffs, etc). Would you rather the government hadn't loaned tesla motors $465 million to encourage green development? I think that low-interest government loans to businesses help encourage competition and innovation. I think encouraging 'green' cars is a worthwhile use of my tax dollars. If we let the free market work, gas-powered cars will dominate the market because they're cheaper...polluting the atmosphere until climate change is truly devestating...until...the gas runs out...then...boom, there goes the economy.

Perhaps one reason gas powered cars are cheaper is because of government. The obvious - Our government wages war to keep the price of oil stable, what would the price be without the use of our military? If the price of oil was higher, perhaps the cost of gas powered cars would be higher, perhaps there would be a greater incentive for people to innovate in area that compete with gas powered cars. There are many layers in this analysis, and My point is that no person, no government is smart enough to address all of the consequences in trying to micro-manage our economy.

---------- Post added at 05:14 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:09 PM ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tully Mars

What I'm saying is you constantly state this action was negative and you blame Obama for it which is simply telling a half truth.

I really, really don't like Obama. That as a given, I can be wrong - I did not know Bush bailed-out GM. Either way it was wrong.

Quote:

Seems to me both the GOP and the Dems looked at this and came up with the same solution. If or how much that solution worked is completely debatable. Claiming it's "Obama's program" is being dishonest.

I am sorry but I spend time listening to the wrod that come out of Obama's mouth. He takes credit for saving GM. Are you saying that he has been giving that credit to Bush???

roachboy · 09-27-2010, 10:24 AM

gee, ace, the people krugman is talking about sound like you.
you know, those people whose markety metaphysics would rather see people starve than support efforts to defibrillate the us economy.
whose delicate aesthetic sensibility prefers pretty markety pictures and stupid supply curves to the messiness of reality.

Quote:

Structure of Excuses
By PAUL KRUGMAN

What can be done about mass unemployment? All the wise heads agree: there are no quick or easy answers. There is work to be done, but workers aren’t ready to do it — they’re in the wrong places, or they have the wrong skills. Our problems are “structural,” and will take many years to solve.

But don’t bother asking for evidence that justifies this bleak view. There isn’t any. On the contrary, all the facts suggest that high unemployment in America is the result of inadequate demand — full stop. Saying that there are no easy answers sounds wise, but it’s actually foolish: our unemployment crisis could be cured very quickly if we had the intellectual clarity and political will to act.

In other words, structural unemployment is a fake problem, which mainly serves as an excuse for not pursuing real solutions.

Who are these wise heads I’m talking about? The most widely quoted figure is Narayana Kocherlakota, the president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, who has attracted a lot of attention by insisting that dealing with high unemployment isn’t a Fed responsibility: “Firms have jobs, but can’t find appropriate workers. The workers want to work, but can’t find appropriate jobs,” he asserts, concluding that “It is hard to see how the Fed can do much to cure this problem.”

Now, the Minneapolis Fed is known for its conservative outlook, and claims that unemployment is mainly structural do tend to come from the right of the political spectrum. But some people on the other side of the aisle say similar things. For example, former President Bill Clinton recently told an interviewer that unemployment remained high because “people don’t have the job skills for the jobs that are open.”

Well, I’d respectfully suggest that Mr. Clinton talk to researchers at the Roosevelt Institute and the Economic Policy Institute, both of which have recently released important reports completely debunking claims of a surge in structural unemployment.

After all, what should we be seeing if statements like those of Mr. Kocherlakota or Mr. Clinton were true? The answer is, there should be significant labor shortages somewhere in America — major industries that are trying to expand but are having trouble hiring, major classes of workers who find their skills in great demand, major parts of the country with low unemployment even as the rest of the nation suffers.

None of these things exist. Job openings have plunged in every major sector, while the number of workers forced into part-time employment in almost all industries has soared. Unemployment has surged in every major occupational category. Only three states, with a combined population not much larger than that of Brooklyn, have unemployment rates below 5 percent.

Oh, and where are these firms that “can’t find appropriate workers”? The National Federation of Independent Business has been surveying small businesses for many years, asking them to name their most important problem; the percentage citing problems with labor quality is now at an all-time low, reflecting the reality that these days even highly skilled workers are desperate for employment.

So all the evidence contradicts the claim that we’re mainly suffering from structural unemployment. Why, then, has this claim become so popular?

Part of the answer is that this is what always happens during periods of high unemployment — in part because pundits and analysts believe that declaring the problem deeply rooted, with no easy answers, makes them sound serious.

I’ve been looking at what self-proclaimed experts were saying about unemployment during the Great Depression; it was almost identical to what Very Serious People are saying now. Unemployment cannot be brought down rapidly, declared one 1935 analysis, because the work force is “unadaptable and untrained. It cannot respond to the opportunities which industry may offer.” A few years later, a large defense buildup finally provided a fiscal stimulus adequate to the economy’s needs — and suddenly industry was eager to employ those “unadaptable and untrained” workers.

But now, as then, powerful forces are ideologically opposed to the whole idea of government action on a sufficient scale to jump-start the economy. And that, fundamentally, is why claims that we face huge structural problems have been proliferating: they offer a reason to do nothing about the mass unemployment that is crippling our economy and our society.

So what you need to know is that there is no evidence whatsoever to back these claims. We aren’t suffering from a shortage of needed skills; we’re suffering from a lack of policy resolve. As I said, structural unemployment isn’t a real problem, it’s an excuse — a reason not to act on America’s problems at a time when action is desperately needed.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/27/op...ef=global-home

i suppose so long as it's not your right-wing ass that's starving, these reasons to do nothing are compelling.

aceventura3 · 09-27-2010, 10:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

gee, ace, the people krugman is talking about sound like you.
you know, those people whose markety metaphysics would rather see people starve than support efforts to defibrillate the us economy.

That is real good. I want people to starve. Then you think a guy like Krugman or anyone else has the magic to defibrillate the US economy - if so, and assuming they don't want people to starve (virtually impossible to happen in the US, unless self imposed), why has it been done? what is Krugman's plan, the bailout wasn't big enough - that is convenient. An excuse he would forever be able to use. Oh, not big enough. If had been bigger last year. Oh, not big enough. If had been bigger six months ago...

Quote:

whose delicate aesthetic sensibility prefers pretty markety pictures and stupid supply curves to the messiness of reality.

Innovation always comes before standard of living increases. Innovation comes from innovators, those willing to take a risk to make things better, even if their motivation is selfish - everyone wins by the efforts of these people.

I will ask you a personal question.

If you became a billionaire, how many people would benefit?

What is a fair ratio between wealth creators becoming filthy rich and the number of people they take along for the ride? What would your ratio be? 1 to 100, 1 to 1,000, 1 to 1,000,000. If you becoming a billionaire would make the world a better place, and you apply your ratio, don't you have a moral obligation to become a billionaire? Why haven't you?

I got it you would prefer people starve! How sad.

dogzilla · 09-27-2010, 11:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/27/op...ef=global-home

i suppose so long as it's not your right-wing ass that's starving, these reasons to do nothing are compelling.

So I gather that what Paul is saying is that the reason unemployment is so high is because there's no demand and that the government should invent some demand by another stimulus.

So let's see. Over the past years, people have been borrowing money like mad to finance their lifestyles with money they didn't have. So credit card balances and home equity loan balances went sky high so people could have all these neat things.

And the economy went nuts. Factories were working overtime to satisfy the demand for all these nice things.

Then people discovered that they had to pay back all this money that they couldn't because they way overextended themselves. So now they couldn't get any more credit to buy nice things and the economy crashed.

So now people are beginning to realize that maxing out your credit limit and maintaining a negative savings rate wasn't such a bright idea. Between that and maxing out their credit, they stopped buying things. So now factories are sitting idle and people are laid off.

So Obama and his liberal buddies like Paul come up with this brilliant idea to create some phony demand by borrowing even more money, thinking that this phony demand will bring the economy back to life.

So Obama tried this at least twice, with cash for clunkers and a homebuyer credit. Both times, demand went crazy because Obama's programs borrowed against future sales.

Then the programs ended. So did the demand and we are back where we started, except now we owe the Chinese even more money.

Obama is an idiot. Paul Krugman is an idiot.

Fortunately, elections are happening in another month and a half. Then maybe Obama will get the message. If not, then Obama will be out of work too.

Willravel · 09-27-2010, 11:27 AM

Imagine the economy is a car that's stalled. The starter is busted, and you need to push it in order to get going again. Stimulus is that push. The problem is that the previous stimulus package was watered down, it wasn't enough to turn over the engine. If stimulus is going to be the way this thing gets going again, we need enough push so that when we pop the clutch, the engine turns over and starts running on its own again. That way we can drive it to the shop and do an overhaul (financial reform legislation).

Hooray for illustrations!

aceventura3 · 09-27-2010, 11:38 AM

Just for kicks I looked into Ferrari California specs compared to a Telsa Roadster S. Both can go from 0 to 60 mph in less than 4 seconds. The Farrari needs 453 HP, 358 lbs/ft of torque at 13/19 mpg costing $192,000. The Telsa needs 288 HP, 295 lbs/ft of torque, zero tailpipe emissions, no gas, costing $128,500.

The GM Corvette ZR1 can also get to 60 in less than 4 seconds, it needs 638 HP and 604 lbs/ft of torque, at 14/20 mpg, costing $109,000 - if you can get one at that price. Is it a good thing that the US government subsidizes the Corvette?

Oh, for the record skilled auto workers can work for a company like Telsa Motors just as easily as they can work for GM.

And another thing - many motorcycles can get to 60 in less than 4 seconds, many costing less than $15,000 and some getting up to 50 mpg. And I know a guy who modified a Toyota Supra to a claimed sub 4 second 60. Given the noise it makes I don't doubt it.

---------- Post added at 07:38 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:32 PM ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by Willravel

Imagine the economy is a car that's stalled. The starter is busted, and you need to push it in order to get going again. Stimulus is that push.

Now it becomes clear, what the problem may be.

If the starter is busted, you need to replace the starter (or rebuild it). Otherwise you are going to be push starting a heck of a lot. And, you need some good strong buddies that have to go every where with you - you'll need a lot of beer.

dogzilla · 09-27-2010, 11:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Willravel

Imagine the economy is a car that's stalled. The starter is busted, and you need to push it in order to get going again. Stimulus is that push. The problem is that the previous stimulus package was watered down, it wasn't enough to turn over the engine. If stimulus is going to be the way this thing gets going again, we need enough push so that when we pop the clutch, the engine turns over and starts running on its own again. That way we can drive it to the shop and do an overhaul (financial reform legislation).

Hooray for illustrations!

Obama's last attempt didn't work. So how much is enough? $1 trillion? $2 trillion? Why not go big and spend $10 trillion? That's sure to work, isn't it? Never mind that our great-great-great-great grandchildren will still be paying the price for that stupidity if the Chinese don't foreclose on us first.

Maybe Obama needs to get Congress to pass a law requiring every household in the US to spend 150% of its income for the next five years.

Maybe Obama should just quit screwing with the economy before he gets into even more trouble.

Derwood · 09-27-2010, 11:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dogzilla

Obama's last attempt didn't work. So how much is enough? $1 trillion? $2 trillion? Why not go big and spend $10 trillion? That's sure to work, isn't it? Never mind that our great-great-great-great grandchildren will still be paying the price for that stupidity if the Chinese don't foreclose on us first.

Maybe Obama needs to get Congress to pass a law requiring every household in the US to spend 150% of its income for the next five years.

Maybe Obama should just quit screwing with the economy before he gets into even more trouble.

so your solution is what, exactly?

aceventura3 · 09-27-2010, 11:54 AM

What dogzilla said!

And the gift that won't stop giving...

So, the government gives a bailout to GM so they can make $100K+ Corvettes getting 14 mpg in the city so 50 year-old "rich" guys with bad mustaches can buy them subsidized buy the American taxpayer...

And that's o.k. with you folks???Come on, even if we disagree on everything else, that is pretty funny stuff, isn't it? Isn't it? Please, tell me you see the humor in this? Please.

---------- Post added at 07:54 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:53 PM ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by Derwood

so your solution is what, exactly?

Government get out of the way and let innovators innovate.

roachboy · 09-27-2010, 11:59 AM

Quote:

Government get out of the way and let innovators innovate.

so nothing. you have no ideas. you have no proposals. you have platitudes.

it's like the editorial says, almost to the letter.

dogzilla · 09-27-2010, 12:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Derwood

so your solution is what, exactly?

First, no more stimulus programs.

Second, cancel any remaining funding that hasn't been spent on current stimulus programs.

Third, aggressively cut budgets for all federal programs. Eliminate federal programs and agencies that were power grabs from the states. Let the states administer local programs to suit their needs, not some one size fits all federal approach.

Fourth, start paying down the federal debt.

Once that's done, cut taxes to the point necessary to fund the smaller federal government.

Then work on legal reform to get rid of a bunch of laws that make it difficult to do business in this country. I'd start by eliminating class action lawsuits.

aceventura3 · 09-27-2010, 12:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

so nothing. you have no ideas. you have no proposals. you have platitudes.

it's like the editorial says, almost to the letter.

Nothing is better than negative.

The risks of the government trying to do good is full of unintended consequences. Government has done a poor job at picking winners, they do it at the expense of the rest of us. Surprised, you can't see that in the countless examples presented. Again, I can understand disagreement - but you don't even seem to understand the other-side of the argument. Get over the dribble about me wanting people to starve, and the you have no ideas, talking points - dig deeper for a better dialog.

And then there is your prize winning Krugman, who uses lots of words to say nothing - ah, should have been a bigger bailout, ah should have done that bailout sooner...

Willravel · 09-27-2010, 12:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dogzilla

Obama's last attempt didn't work.

President Obama's last attempt was like a chipmunk trying to turn over a hemi, but we've still managed to make progress. Even the conservative American Enterprise Institute admitted back in January that the stimulus helped to boost the economy by 4%. So, actually, it did work. Whoever told you it didn't is a liar and a fiend.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dogzilla

So how much is enough? $1 trillion? $2 trillion? Why not go big and spend $10 trillion? That's sure to work, isn't it? Never mind that our great-great-great-great grandchildren will still be paying the price for that stupidity if the Chinese don't foreclose on us first.

Economists are saying we need a second stimulus, an investment that will pay off big time in the long-run. Do you understand the concept of investment? It's not the government writing a check and getting nothing in return, it's about saving a dying economy and perhaps saving our crumbling infrastructure in the process. And don't give me that "future generations" line. It was Republicans that spent us into this stupid mess, and I didn't hear a peep from the right while it was happening. Perhaps the drum beat to two expensive, unnecessary, and wasteful wars was too loud?

New rule: you don't get to call yourself a fiscal conservative if you ever supported the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Bush tax cuts, or the prescription drug bill.

roachboy · 09-27-2010, 12:46 PM

the right has specialized in using massive increases in military spending to prop up economic sectors that are in the main friendly to republican interests. that's been how the right has rolled since the reagan period. military keynesians they were called. the right coupled that with meaningless hoodoo about markets presumably to keep the chumps enthralled and to legitimate cutting social programs, which the right has opposed since the halcyon days of herbert fucking hoover, which is the last time that conservative markety bromides ran into a structural crisis and found that they have nothing to offer. letting the right into power now would be a recipe for complete economic and political disaster.

i don't think the obama administration was anywhere near social-democratic enough. but the way the bush people fucked up was so massive and so thorough-going that it was difficult to buy space for much in the way of policy-development. from before they got into office, the obama administration was managing crisis that conservative ideology produced.

but that's not the conservative talking point. the conservative talking point assumes no memory whatsoever and pushes the whole of this pile of shit onto obama. i figure you have to have some cognitive impairment to buy that line. and when i see the economic "ideas" presented here, i think that seems a powerful explanation.

aceventura3 · 09-27-2010, 12:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Willravel

President Obama's last attempt was like a chipmunk trying to turn over a hemi, but we've still managed to make progress. Even the conservative American Enterprise Institute admitted back in January that the stimulus helped to boost the economy by 4%. So, actually, it did work. Whoever told you it didn't is a liar and a fiend.

In response to "it did work", I came across this and thought it interesting enough to share. It illustrates the folly in government's ability to manipulate GDP and why the correlation to unemployment may be more important in our current state of affairs.

Roach is gonna love this.

Quote:

WHY DOES THE ECONOMY HAVE A "SPEED LIMIT"?

With the decline of the traditional extended family, in which relatives were available to take care of children at need, many parents in the United States have sought alternative arrangements. A popular scheme is the baby-sitting coop, in which a group of parents agree to help each other out on a reciprocal basis, with each parent serving both as baby-sitter and baby-sittee. Any such coop requires rules that ensure that all members do their fair share. One natural answer, at least to people accustomed to a market economy, is to use some kind of token or marker system: parents "earn" tokens by babysitting, then in turn hand over these tokens when their own children are minded by others. For example, a recently formed coop in Western Massachusetts uses Popsicle sticks, each representing one hour of babysitting. When a new parent enters the coop, he or she receives an initial allocation of ten sticks.

This system is self-regulating, in the sense that it automatically ensures that over any length of time a parent will put in more or less the same amount of time that he or she receives. It turns out, however, that establishing such a token system is not enough to make a coop work properly. It is also necessary to get the number of tokens per member more or less right. To see why, suppose that there were very few tokens in circulation. Parents will want on average to hold some reserve of tokens - enough to deal with the possibility that they may want to go out a few times before they have a chance to babysit themselves and earn more tokens. Any individual parent can, of course, try to accumulate more tokens by babysitting more and going out less. But what happens if almost everyone is trying to accumulate tokens - as they will be if there are very few in circulation? One parent's decision to go out is another's opportunity to babysit. So if everyone in the coop is trying to add to his or her reserve of tokens, there will be very few opportunities to babysit. This in turn will make people even more reluctant to go out, and use up their precious token reserves; and the level of activity in the coop may decline to a disappointingly low level.

The solution to this problem is, of course, simply to issue more Popsicle sticks. But not too many - because an excess of popsicle sticks can pose an equally severe problem. Suppose that almost everyone in the coop has more sticks than they need; then they will be eager to go out, but reluctant to babysit. It will therefore become hard to find babysitters - and since opportunities to use popsicle sticks will become rare, people will become even less willing to spend time and effort earning them. Too many tokens in circulation, then, can be just as destructive as too few.

What on earth does all this have to do with the new paradigm? Well, a baby-sitting coop is a kind of miniature macroeconomy: a system in which individual decisions to spend and save are crucially interdependent, because your spending is my income and vice versa. The depressed state of a babysitting coop with too few tokens in circulation is essentially the same as that of the U.S. economy as a whole when it slips into a recession. And the ability of a Paul Volcker or an Alan Greenspan to engineer a recovery from such a recession rests on their control over the money supply - which is to say, over the number of popsicle sticks.

There are, of course, some important differences between the full-scale economy and a baby-sitting coop with at most a few dozen members. One difference is that the big economy has a capital market: individuals who are short of cash can borrow from others who are cash-rich, so that the effects of an overall shortage or abundance of money get mediated through the level of interest rates. An even more important difference involves prices. In the typical baby-sitting coop, prices are fixed: one popsicle stick buys one hour of baby-sitting, and that's that. In the big economy firms are free to change their prices - to cut prices if they are having trouble selling their product, to increase them if they think it will not hurt their sales. It turns out as a practical matter that firms are quite reluctant to cut prices (and workers are very reluctant to accept wage cuts): while prolonged recessions do eventually lead to price reductions, they do so only gradually and painfully. Firms have, however, historically been less reluctant to raise prices in boom conditions. For this reason the kind of shortage situation a coop gets into when there are too many tokens in circulation is rarely severe in market economies; excessive money creation gets dissipated in inflation instead.

Still, the popsicle-stick economy may help us to dispel some commonly held misconceptions about why economists generally think that there are limits to how fast the economy can grow. First, nobody claims that the economy has a 2-point-something percent speed limit under all circumstances. When a baby-sitting coop is in a depressed state because of an insufficient popsicle-stick supply, its GBP (gross baby-sitting product) can rise very quickly when that supply is increased. Thus there is nothing puzzling about the ability of the U.S. economy to grow at a rate of more than 3 ½ percent from 1982 to 1989: thanks to expansionary monetary policy the economy was rebounding from a recession that had raised the unemployment rate to 10.7 percent, and left output probably 10 percent below capacity. The "speed limit" applies only when the economy has expanded as much as it can by taking up slack, by employing unemployed resources.

Second, the logic of the standard economic argument against over-ambitious growth targets once the economy is near full employment is also widely misunderstood; many, perhaps most, of the critics of that argument base their opposition on a misleading caricature of what economists are saying. All too often, advocates of faster growth assert that their opponents believe that "growth causes inflation"; this supposed view is then held up for ridicule. After all, isn't inflation supposed to be a matter of too much money chasing too few goods - and if so, how can growth, which means producing more goods, be a cause of inflation? But that is not what economists who think that an overambitious growth target will be inflationary are saying. Nobody claims that a baby-sitting coop would suffer from shortages if it grew by adding new members, or if current members became more efficient at child care and were therefore able to do more baby-sitting. The limits - and the risk of inflation - apply only to growth achieved by expanding demand, say by issuing more popsicle sticks.

So how much is too much? Again, return to the babysitting economy. How would you know when there were too many popsicle sticks in circulation? One useful indicator would be the frequency with which parents sought but could not find opportunities to babysit - which would essentially be the coop's unemployment rate. Another would be the frequency with which parents sought but could not find babysitters. This would more or less correspond to the U.S. economy's "vacancy rate" - the number of jobs offered by business that are still unfilled. If unemployment were very low and vacancies high, this would be an indicator that the coop was suffering from excessive demand. In the full-scale economy it turns out that the vacancy rate and the unemployment rate are very closely (inversely) correlated - but data on unemployment are collected more regularly and systematically, so we can use the more readily available unemployment rate as a pretty good indicator of labor market tightness.

http://web.mit.edu/krugman/www/howfast.html

I did the bolding.

Derwood · 09-27-2010, 01:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dogzilla

First, no more stimulus programs.

Second, cancel any remaining funding that hasn't been spent on current stimulus programs.

Third, aggressively cut budgets for all federal programs. Eliminate federal programs and agencies that were power grabs from the states. Let the states administer local programs to suit their needs, not some one size fits all federal approach.

Fourth, start paying down the federal debt.

Once that's done, cut taxes to the point necessary to fund the smaller federal government.

Then work on legal reform to get rid of a bunch of laws that make it difficult to do business in this country. I'd start by eliminating class action lawsuits.

how?

aceventura3 · 09-27-2010, 02:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Derwood

how?

Eliminate waste in government spending.
End duplicitous spending.
End contradictory spending, i.e. government hurting people needing help and often getting help - creating a cycle of dependence rather than independence.

Quote:

Some critics and proponents of the World Trade Organization have noted that export subsidies, by driving down the price of commodities, can provide cheap food for consumers in developing countries.[21][22] But low prices are also considered harmful to farmers not receiving the subsidy. Because it is usually wealthy countries that can afford domestic subsidies, critics argue that they promote poverty in developing countries by artificially driving down world crop prices.[23] Agriculture is one of the few areas where developing countries have a comparative advantage, but low crop prices encourage developing countries to be dependent buyers of food from wealthy countries. So local farmers, instead of improving the agricultural and economic self-sufficiency of their home country, are instead forced out of the market and perhaps even off their land. Agricultural subsidies often are a common stumbling block in trade negotiations. In 2006, talks at the Doha round of WTO trade negotiations stalled because the US refused to cut subsidies to a level where other countries' non-subsidized exports would have been competitive.[24]

Agricultural subsidy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

But most important, our economy has to grow to eliminate the debt that has been accumulated. Our economy, the global economy needs the next big thing, whatever that is. We need innovation, we need the next "age" to start. We need to give the people capable of doing it an opportunity to do it. The information age started in the 90's may have another leg or two but we need to enter a new growth cycle.

dc_dux · 09-27-2010, 02:26 PM

Ace...all I see are more generalities and misconceptions from you and dogzilla.

Eliminate waste (where, when nearly 2/3 of the budget are entitlements, interest on debt and defense - absolutely cut defense, but conservatives wont touch it)...social safety net programs create a cycle of dependency (despite the fact that most recipients are relatively short-timers), eliminate programs that are power grabs from the states (despite the fact that most high dollar programs are classic federalism, with the feds setting minimum regs and states implementing with their own more specific regs)

I would also add that there is a growing consensus of economists who are of the opinion that the combination of federal policies/actions (TARP bank bailout, stimulus, Fed Reserve policies) prevented a further recession/depression and turned the economy around.

dogzilla · 09-27-2010, 02:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Willravel

President Obama's last attempt was like a chipmunk trying to turn over a hemi, but we've still managed to make progress. Even the conservative American Enterprise Institute admitted back in January that the stimulus helped to boost the economy by 4%. So, actually, it did work. Whoever told you it didn't is a liar and a fiend.

First, the 4% figure, even if true, includes stimulus spending and inventory replacement.

Second, Obama's stimulus program was in the range of $750 billion. Even attributing the growth in the economy entirely to the stimulus, with a $14 trillion GDP in 2009, that's about $560 billion return on $750 billion spending. So does Obama intend to adopt the old business maxim of taking a loss on every sale but making it up in volume?

Third, there were numerous articles at the time cash for clunkers ended and the homebuyer's credit ended about the resulting drop in revenue. Some stimulus. More like borrowing against future sales.

Fourth, if this was like a chipmunk trying to overturn a semi, Obama really should quit before he really fails.

Finally, speaking of amimal metaphors, the one I really liked was Obama after the 2010 elections as a neutered chihuahua

Quote:

Originally Posted by Willravel

Economists are saying we need a second stimulus, an investment that will pay off big time in the long-run. Do you understand the concept of investment? It's not the government writing a check and getting nothing in return, it's about saving a dying economy and perhaps saving our crumbling infrastructure in the process. And don't give me that "future generations" line. It was Republicans that spent us into this stupid mess, and I didn't hear a peep from the right while it was happening. Perhaps the drum beat to two expensive, unnecessary, and wasteful wars was too loud?

You really expect me to take a website named crooks and liars seriously? Or a document signed by a bunch of union bosses?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Willravel

New rule: you don't get to call yourself a fiscal conservative if you ever supported the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Bush tax cuts, or the prescription drug bill.

I don't know Will, I'd consider someone who has maintained a zero debt balance over the last 20 years and only buys things when he has cash to back that purchase a pretty solid example of a fiscal conservative, wouldn't you?

---------- Post added at 06:38 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:36 PM ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

Ace...all I see are more generalities and misconceptions from you and dogzilla.

Eliminate waste (where, when nearly 2/3 of the budget are entitlements, interest on debt and defense - absolutely cut defense, but conservatives wont touch it)...social safety net programs create a cycle of dependency (despite the fact that most recipients are relatively short-timers), eliminate programs that are power grabs from the states (despite the fact that most high dollar programs are classic federalism, with the feds setting minimum regs and states implementing with their own more specific regs)

I would also add that there is a growing consensus of economists who are of the opinion that the combination of federal policies/actions (TARP bank bailout, stimulus, Fed Reserve policies) prevented a further recession/depression and turned the economy around.

You guys carry on about entitlements. Cite me the specific sentence in the Constitution that states that an entitlement program, once enacted by Congress, can't be revoked by Congress.

dc_dux · 09-27-2010, 02:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dogzilla

First, the 4% figure, even if true, includes stimulus spending and inventory replacement.

Second, Obama's stimulus program was in the range of $750 billion. Even attributing the growth in the economy entirely to the stimulus, with a $14 trillion GDP in 2009, that's about $560 billion return on $750 billion spending. So does Obama intend to adopt the old business maxim of taking a loss on every sale but making it up in volume?

First, SO what would you have done in January 2009, after the loss of 8 million jobs and a year of negative GDP growth?

Second...about 2/3 of the stimulus program was not stimulus, in the classic sense of govt spending to create jobs.....1/3 was middle class and small business tax relief and 1/3 was to provide extended benefits (UI, COBRA) for those millions who lost their jobs before 2009 and remained unemployed.

Would you have provided temporary relief for those in need..or just screw'em?

---------- Post added at 06:44 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:42 PM ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by dogzilla

...You guys carry on about entitlements. Cite me the specific sentence in the Constitution that states that an entitlement program, once enacted by Congress, can't be revoked by Congress.

Putting the constitutional question aside because it has no merit.

So you want to revoke Medicare and return to the pre-1965 days when most seniors had no access to affordable health care?

DO you really think the private sector/free market will take on those high risk citizens?

dogzilla · 09-27-2010, 03:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

First, SO what would you have done in January 2009, after the loss of 8 million jobs and a year of negative GDP growth?

Second...about 2/3 of the stimulus program was not stimulus, in the classic sense of govt spending to create jobs.....1/3 was middle class and small business tax relief and 1/3 was to provide extended benefits (UI, COBRA) for those millions who lost their jobs before 2009 and remained unemployed.

Would you have provided temporary relief for those in need..or just screw'em?
[COLOR="DarkSlateGray"]

I don't think extending unemployment for up to two years made any sense at all, especially when I read articles like this.

Despite economy, farm jobs still go begging - Business - Personal finance - msnbc.com

Quote:

Sometimes, U.S. workers also will turn down the jobs because they don't want their unemployment insurance claims to be affected,

I don't think I would have done much. Maybe if the government spent less time screwing around with the economy we would all be better off.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

Putting the constitutional question aside because it has no merit.

So exactly why does this question have no merit? Either it's prohibited by the Constitution, in which case you can quote the sentence in the Constitution, or it's not prohibited, in which case revoking the program is a legitimate option.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

So you want to revoke Medicare and return to the pre-1965 days when most seniors had no access to affordable health care?

DO you really think the private sector/free market will take on those high risk citizens?

Actually, we do that today, even with Medicare

$93,000 cancer drug renews debate on price of life - Health - Cancer - msnbc.com

Quote:

Cancer patients, brace yourselves. Many new drug treatments cost nearly $100,000 a year, sparking fresh debate about how much a few months more of life is worth.

The latest is Provenge, a first-of-a-kind therapy approved in April. It costs $93,000 and adds four months' survival, on average, for men with incurable prostate tumors. Bob Svensson is honest about why he got it: insurance paid.

No matter how much medical care you get, you aren't going to live forever.

Derwood · 09-27-2010, 05:25 PM

Unemployment benefits put $1.90 into the economy for every $1.00 given to the unemployed, so extending them absolutely makes sense.

and saying "trim the fat", etc. is a great idea in a vague sense, but explain how this would happen within the current congress/system we have

answer, it won't. unless you fire everyone in Washington and start over, it just won't. too much corruption, too many lobbyists, too many shenanigans.

here in the real world, Ace and dogzilla's ideas would simply never work

Willravel · 09-27-2010, 07:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dogzilla

First, the 4% figure, even if true, includes stimulus spending and inventory replacement.

There's no if. It's true. You're not entitled to your own facts.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dogzilla

Second, Obama's stimulus program was in the range of $750 billion. Even attributing the growth in the economy entirely to the stimulus, with a $14 trillion GDP in 2009, that's about $560 billion return on $750 billion spending. So does Obama intend to adopt the old business maxim of taking a loss on every sale but making it up in volume?

That's a $560b return SO FAR. Unless we've reached the end of the republic and no one told me, the economy will continue to benefit from the stimulus for the foreseeable future. The fact we've already gotten such a return should be silencing critics.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dogzilla

Third, there were numerous articles at the time cash for clunkers ended and the homebuyer's credit ended about the resulting drop in revenue. Some stimulus. More like borrowing against future sales.

Tell that to auto workers that managed to keep their jobs. Overall, the net benefit intended by Cash for Clunkers was reached. Sales were higher even after the program than projected by organizations like Edmunds. That's food on the tables of a lot of auto workers' families.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dogzilla

Fourth, if this was like a chipmunk trying to overturn a semi, Obama really should quit before he really fails.

He's not willing to quit. He's not a Republican.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dogzilla

You really expect me to take a website named crooks and liars seriously? Or a document signed by a bunch of union bosses?

I expect an iota of intellectual honesty. Ad hom attacks are fallacies for a reason. They're breaks in logic which negate the argument. In other words, try reading the argument instead of attacking the arguer.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dogzilla

I don't know Will, I'd consider someone who has maintained a zero debt balance over the last 20 years and only buys things when he has cash to back that purchase a pretty solid example of a fiscal conservative, wouldn't you?

Not even a little. You see, this same person supported the invasion of two countries, neither of which attacked us, and had no plan in place to pay for them. This person was silent while the Republican president and Republican congress passed several significant tax cuts, also not paid for at all. What, you think because your checkbook is balanced the other stuff doesn't count? You've cost our country trillions. You, dogzilla, along with everyone that touted their fiscal responsibility while spending us into oblivion. It's dishonest and you're not getting away with it anymore. Republicans are not fiscal conservatives. You can't call yourselves that anymore, in fact you've been lying about it since 1980.

Tully Mars · 09-28-2010, 02:26 AM

If there were actual fiscal conservatives I'd likely vote for them. But since I reached voting age they been telling me they're for smaller, more efficient government and spending as much or more then any other politician. The data shows it doesn't work, the people who promise to even try it forget all about it when voted into office.

filtherton · 09-28-2010, 07:05 AM

Isn't the continuation of TBTC for the top 2% just another form of targeted stimulus? It's interesting how many 'fiscal conservatives' favor increased gov't debt via targeted stimulus plans when the beneficiaries of those plans are super rich, but not when the beneficiaries are regular Americans.

dogzilla · 09-28-2010, 07:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by filtherton

Isn't the continuation of TBTC for the top 2% just another form of targeted stimulus? It's interesting how many 'fiscal conservatives' favor increased gov't debt via targeted stimulus plans when the beneficiaries of those plans are super rich, but not when the beneficiaries are regular Americans.

No, since the discussion is that the cuts stay in place for everyone. But as I've posted before, I'm willing to temporarily give up the tax cuts to pay off the federal debt as long as Obama stops spending like a lunatic and gets serious about paying off the debt. I won't go along with raising taxes to give Obama even more money to spend.

Baraka_Guru · 09-28-2010, 07:27 AM

Fiscal conservatism is self-contradictory in the context of today's economic environment. It wants to reduce spending, which is fine if spending isn't getting the return it should. And I understand that with the reduction of spending, you will have an easier time balancing the budget, which is great. However, lowering taxes at the same time is counterproductive, especially when you think about actually paying off the public debt, and especially when taxes are relatively low to begin with.

Why reduce spending only to reduce income and still hope to balance a budget and pay down debt?

If you run up a debt to a level that you'd consider too high, it helps to both reduce spending and increase income.

I call that "fiscal rationalism."

Compare and contrast the difference between the value of tax collections to pay off debt vs. interest cost.

Maybe it's just because I live in "Soviet Canuckistan," but the tax issue in the U.S. just boggles my mind. The cry to reduce taxes, extend the Bush cuts, etc., is ridiculous considering the sore fiscal shape the U.S. is in. Spending in itself isn't the problem. It's how the money is being spent (and I'm not just talking about the stimulus here; I'm talking historically). It's the low tax rate and the high public debt.

Now it's time for some pretty pictures:

In a nutshell: thanks probably in large part to Reganomics, the top earners in the U.S. are paying far less in tax than they have historically. Moreover, the increases in national debt has outstripped the increases in spending. Why? Well, it's simple: fewer tax collections to pay for that spending (i.e. it's not just the interest).

The average tax burden is at a 40-year low. What an odd time to be paying less in taxes. What at odd time to demand paying less.

dc_dux · 09-28-2010, 07:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru

Fiscal conservatism is self-contradictory in the context of today's economic environment. It wants to reduce spending, which is fine if spending isn't getting the return it should. And I understand that with the reduction of spending, you will have an easier time balancing the budget, which is great. However, lowering taxes at the same time is counterproductive, especially when you think about actually paying off the public debt, and especially when taxes are relatively low to begin with.

Why reduce spending only to reduce income and still hope to balance a budget and pay down debt?
.....

The fact remains, as most (other than the "fiscal conservatives") acknowledge, you cant reduce spending AND cut taxes AND expect to lower the annual deficit or paydown the debt, as proposed in the new Republican "Pledge to America."

Tully Mars · 09-28-2010, 08:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

The fact remains, as most (other than the "fiscal conservatives") acknowledge, you cant reduce spending AND cut taxes AND expect to lower the annual deficit or paydown the debt, as proposed in the new Republican "Pledge to America."

No, no you can do all that and fight two wars, silly Dux.

dogzilla · 09-28-2010, 09:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

The fact remains, as most (other than the "fiscal conservatives") acknowledge, you cant reduce spending AND cut taxes AND expect to lower the annual deficit or paydown the debt, as proposed in the new Republican "Pledge to America."

Neither can you reduce the debt by increasing taxes and increasing spending like Obama and his liberal/socialist buddies want to do

Baraka_Guru · 09-28-2010, 09:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dogzilla

Neither can you reduce the debt by increasing taxes and increasing spending like Obama and his liberal/socialist buddies want to do

Obama's current goal is not to reduce the debt. He was upfront about his goal from the beginning: managing economic crisis.

It requires a bit of a different strategy than does debt reduction. Really.

Tully Mars · 09-28-2010, 09:12 AM

Reducing the debt is a lot like reducing the US dependence on foreign oil. Folks from all sides of the aisle talk a good game until they get elected then it's porky, pork time for their district. More Fed $ coming to their district is great to get them re-elected... sucks for the nation as a whole. I always admired McCain for keeping his nose out of the barrel. I think it'll be interesting to see what Miller does in Alaska. I predict the equivalent of "bridges to nowhere" but I'm more then willing to be surprised.

dc_dux · 09-28-2010, 09:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru

Obama's current goal is not to reduce the debt. He was upfront about his goal from the beginning: managing economic crisis.

It requires a bit of a different strategy than does a strategy for debt reduction. Really.

Absolutely.

In the short term, the priority was preventing a further recession/depression. Most economist shared the opinion that deficit reduction had to be temporarily put aside, while disagreeing on the specifics of a ""stimulus" (conservatives wanted more "trickle down" tax cuts instead of spending).

And in the long term, many recognize that economic growth will depend on a new strategy and not just restoring an old economy.... in large part on investing in innovation and being a leader in developing and advancing new technologies...ie, national broadband network, clean/renewable energy technologies - the next global industry in which the US has already fallen behind, cutting-edge health technologies, etc.

You have to spend money (govt investment) to make money....govt investment in emerging businesses/industries has always been the norm....from the industrial revolution, the creation of the railways in the 19th century to the aerospace industry and the computer age of the 20th century.

And, most also accept the value of investing in people.... that government has a viable role in providing a temporary safety net for those who, for short periods of time, have fallen through the cracks.

aceventura3 · 09-28-2010, 10:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

Ace...all I see are more generalities and misconceptions from you and dogzilla.

I gave the example of government farm subsidies. Cut them. A carry over from the 1930's when the nature of farming was very different than today. A program that subsidies a selected few at the expense of not only tax payers but to the people in third world nations trying to develop their own farming economies.

I gave a specific example of the problems with the GM bailout. Over the course of many posts I have given many other specific examples as well. Here is another odd government expenditure, according to this cite we subsidize tobacco, $944 million between 1995-2009.

United States Tobacco Subsidies || EWG Farm Subsidy Database

If there are misconceptions, isn't that what this board is all about - people post their views/beliefs/information and others present opposing views/beliefs/information? Just saying I am wrong or that I want people to starve - is pointless, don't you agree?

dc_dux · 09-28-2010, 11:04 AM

ace...the misconception to which I referred was the baseless notion that govt social safety net programs create a cycle of dependence (paraphrasing your remarks). It is one of those libertarian talking points based on anecdotes (welfare queens) not supported by the facts.

aceventura3 · 09-28-2010, 11:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

First, SO what would you have done in January 2009, after the loss of 8 million jobs and a year of negative GDP growth?

Spoke truthfully about business cycles and the underlying strength and resiliency of our economy. Confidence levels are not improving, there is a reason for this, and it has nothing to do with Bush.

Quote:

Americans' view of the economy turned grimmer in September amid escalating job worries, falling to the lowest point since February.

The downbeat report was released Tuesday on the same day a survey of CEOs was released that showed dimming optimism about business. The Business Roundtable's poll indicated that executives weren't as optimistic about sales growth as they were in June, suggesting some are putting plans to hire more workers on hold.

The Conference Board, based in New York, said its monthly Consumer Confidence Index now stands at 48.5, down from the revised 53.2 in August. Economists surveyed by Thomson Reuters were expecting 52.5.

The reading marked the lowest point since February's 46.4. It takes a reading of 90 to indicate a healthy economy — a level not approached since the recession began in December 2007.

Economists watch confidence closely because consumer spending accounts for about 70 percent of U.S. economic activity and is critical to a strong rebound.

The index — which measures how shoppers feel about business conditions, the job market and the next six months — had been recovering fitfully since hitting an all-time low of 25.3 in February 2009, but Americans are just as downbeat as they were a year ago.

Consumer, Business Confidence Both Weaken - ABC News

dc_dux · 09-28-2010, 11:07 AM

Ace, I still havent seen anything from you or dogzilla in the way of specifics in how you can cut spending AND cut taxes w/o having an adverse short-term economic impact.

Or how long term investment (govt spending) on R&D and supporting the development of emerging technologies is bad for the economy.

Libertarian talking points that have never proven successful anywhere, at any time, do not represent a strategy for deficit reduction or economic growth.

aceventura3 · 09-28-2010, 11:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

The fact remains, as most (other than the "fiscal conservatives") acknowledge, you cant reduce spending AND cut taxes AND expect to lower the annual deficit or paydown the debt, as proposed in the new Republican "Pledge to America."

This is a fact?

First, reducing spending has nothing to do with tax rates. What we need to be concerned about are tax dollars collected. We need to cut spending regardless of the tax rate.

Second, our debt is so large at this point economic growth is the only thing that will eliminate it. We need to grow the taxable income base of our nation. Putting it bluntly, we need to create more billionaires - people who start with an idea and turn it into world changing products and services. Supply side stuff. Along the way, they pay a hell of a lot in taxes, and carry a lot of people along with them. Supply Side, Supply Side, Supply Side.

---------- Post added at 07:17 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:14 PM ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

ace...the misconception to which I referred was the baseless notion that govt social safety net programs create a cycle of dependence (paraphrasing your remarks).

Give a post number or link. You think I said it, prove it.

Quote:

It is one of those libertarian talking points based on anecdotes (welfare queens) not supported by the facts.

Why make stuff up? I want to starve people and now some make believe about welfare queens??? Where did that come from?

09-27-2010, 12:46 PM	#176 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	the right has specialized in using massive increases in military spending to prop up economic sectors that are in the main friendly to republican interests. that's been how the right has rolled since the reagan period. military keynesians they were called. the right coupled that with meaningless hoodoo about markets presumably to keep the chumps enthralled and to legitimate cutting social programs, which the right has opposed since the halcyon days of herbert fucking hoover, which is the last time that conservative markety bromides ran into a structural crisis and found that they have nothing to offer. letting the right into power now would be a recipe for complete economic and political disaster. i don't think the obama administration was anywhere near social-democratic enough. but the way the bush people fucked up was so massive and so thorough-going that it was difficult to buy space for much in the way of policy-development. from before they got into office, the obama administration was managing crisis that conservative ideology produced. but that's not the conservative talking point. the conservative talking point assumes no memory whatsoever and pushes the whole of this pile of shit onto obama. i figure you have to have some cognitive impairment to buy that line. and when i see the economic "ideas" presented here, i think that seems a powerful explanation. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

09-27-2010, 02:26 PM	#180 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	Ace...all I see are more generalities and misconceptions from you and dogzilla. Eliminate waste (where, when nearly 2/3 of the budget are entitlements, interest on debt and defense - absolutely cut defense, but conservatives wont touch it)...social safety net programs create a cycle of dependency (despite the fact that most recipients are relatively short-timers), eliminate programs that are power grabs from the states (despite the fact that most high dollar programs are classic federalism, with the feds setting minimum regs and states implementing with their own more specific regs) I would also add that there is a growing consensus of economists who are of the opinion that the combination of federal policies/actions (TARP bank bailout, stimulus, Fed Reserve policies) prevented a further recession/depression and turned the economy around. __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire

09-27-2010, 05:25 PM	#184 (permalink)
Derwood Who You Crappin? Location: Everywhere and Nowhere	Unemployment benefits put $1.90 into the economy for every $1.00 given to the unemployed, so extending them absolutely makes sense. and saying "trim the fat", etc. is a great idea in a vague sense, but explain how this would happen within the current congress/system we have answer, it won't. unless you fire everyone in Washington and start over, it just won't. too much corruption, too many lobbyists, too many shenanigans. here in the real world, Ace and dogzilla's ideas would simply never work __________________ "You can't shoot a country until it becomes a democracy." - Willravel

09-28-2010, 02:26 AM	#186 (permalink)
Tully Mars Living in a Warmer Insanity Super Moderator Location: Yucatan, Mexico	If there were actual fiscal conservatives I'd likely vote for them. But since I reached voting age they been telling me they're for smaller, more efficient government and spending as much or more then any other politician. The data shows it doesn't work, the people who promise to even try it forget all about it when voted into office. __________________ I used to drink to drown my sorrows, but the damned things have learned how to swim- Frida Kahlo Vice President Starkizzer Fan Club Last edited by Tully Mars; 09-28-2010 at 02:28 AM..

09-28-2010, 07:27 AM	#189 (permalink)
Baraka_Guru warrior bodhisattva Super Moderator Location: East-central Canada	Fiscal conservatism is self-contradictory in the context of today's economic environment. It wants to reduce spending, which is fine if spending isn't getting the return it should. And I understand that with the reduction of spending, you will have an easier time balancing the budget, which is great. However, lowering taxes at the same time is counterproductive, especially when you think about actually paying off the public debt, and especially when taxes are relatively low to begin with. Why reduce spending only to reduce income and still hope to balance a budget and pay down debt? If you run up a debt to a level that you'd consider too high, it helps to both reduce spending and increase income. I call that "fiscal rationalism." Compare and contrast the difference between the value of tax collections to pay off debt vs. interest cost. Maybe it's just because I live in "Soviet Canuckistan," but the tax issue in the U.S. just boggles my mind. The cry to reduce taxes, extend the Bush cuts, etc., is ridiculous considering the sore fiscal shape the U.S. is in. Spending in itself isn't the problem. It's how the money is being spent (and I'm not just talking about the stimulus here; I'm talking historically). It's the low tax rate and the high public debt. Now it's time for some pretty pictures: In a nutshell: thanks probably in large part to Reganomics, the top earners in the U.S. are paying far less in tax than they have historically. Moreover, the increases in national debt has outstripped the increases in spending. Why? Well, it's simple: fewer tax collections to pay for that spending (i.e. it's not just the interest). The average tax burden is at a 40-year low. What an odd time to be paying less in taxes. What at odd time to demand paying less. __________________ Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing? —Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön Humankind cannot bear very much reality. —From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot Last edited by Baraka_Guru; 09-28-2010 at 07:32 AM..

09-27-2010, 11:27 AM	#167 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	Imagine the economy is a car that's stalled. The starter is busted, and you need to push it in order to get going again. Stimulus is that push. The problem is that the previous stimulus package was watered down, it wasn't enough to turn over the engine. If stimulus is going to be the way this thing gets going again, we need enough push so that when we pop the clutch, the engine turns over and starts running on its own again. That way we can drive it to the shop and do an overhaul (financial reform legislation). Hooray for illustrations!

09-28-2010, 07:05 AM	#187 (permalink)
filtherton Junkie Location: In the land of ice and snow.	Isn't the continuation of TBTC for the top 2% just another form of targeted stimulus? It's interesting how many 'fiscal conservatives' favor increased gov't debt via targeted stimulus plans when the beneficiaries of those plans are super rich, but not when the beneficiaries are regular Americans.

09-28-2010, 09:12 AM	#194 (permalink)
Tully Mars Living in a Warmer Insanity Super Moderator Location: Yucatan, Mexico	Reducing the debt is a lot like reducing the US dependence on foreign oil. Folks from all sides of the aisle talk a good game until they get elected then it's porky, pork time for their district. More Fed $ coming to their district is great to get them re-elected... sucks for the nation as a whole. I always admired McCain for keeping his nose out of the barrel. I think it'll be interesting to see what Miller does in Alaska. I predict the equivalent of "bridges to nowhere" but I'm more then willing to be surprised. __________________ I used to drink to drown my sorrows, but the damned things have learned how to swim- Frida Kahlo Vice President Starkizzer Fan Club

09-28-2010, 11:04 AM	#197 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	ace...the misconception to which I referred was the baseless notion that govt social safety net programs create a cycle of dependence (paraphrasing your remarks). It is one of those libertarian talking points based on anecdotes (welfare queens) not supported by the facts. __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire

09-28-2010, 11:07 AM	#199 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	Ace, I still havent seen anything from you or dogzilla in the way of specifics in how you can cut spending AND cut taxes w/o having an adverse short-term economic impact. Or how long term investment (govt spending) on R&D and supporting the development of emerging technologies is bad for the economy. Libertarian talking points that have never proven successful anywhere, at any time, do not represent a strategy for deficit reduction or economic growth. __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire Last edited by dc_dux; 09-28-2010 at 11:10 AM..