Your little unemployment chart is misleading and deceptive. Those two curves, the with and w/o the stimulus curves were mere projections. With economics there is always a significant fudge factor. Just because unemployment did go higher than the projected figures proves nothing. To think that not implementing the stimulus would have been better for the economy is patently absurd no matter what charts or graphs you may use
"Global warming a total scam" - Have you studied science at all? Even if you look past all the political games and hype of it all, the evidence and science of it is still there.
Fuck politicians. They're ALL full of shit. And by the way, there's actual scientific proof that global warming is real. Since the late 1800's, global temperatures have gone up exponentially. Of course, the politicians have been "fudging" the proof to get more attention, yes, BUT the actual scientists who know what they're doing have legitimate evidence of global warming. Don't worry, we won't destroy the planet, it will destroy us. We're just an itch on it's surface, about to be scratched off.
The report sited was an estimate issued by Christine Romer prior to Barack Obama becoming President. The report said actual results would depend on what Congress finally agreed. Well Congress agreed on a watered down version. Unemployment was already over 8% before the bill was finally signed into law. Remember we were losing over 500,000 a month during the last several months of the Bush presidency. Things were so bad the Republicans did not want Bush or Cheney at the Republican convention.
Christine O'donnel hired the demon sheep ad creators to work on her campaign.
This is the same Christine that talked about her satanic altar experience with on the Bill Maher show. Let's see wasn't their a movie about a demon possesed car,
QUESTION .......who stood in silence whilst the worst economic crisis in recent world history unfolded? all Obama has been trying to do is clean the poo off the fan that Bush and his cohorts spent 8 years shitting on. Thats a tough job......Global warming....your head is buried in the clean white republican sand young sprout.
Any person with half a neuron of sense would not gamble the possibility of human impact on the worlds environment.
your point about the stimulus causing more unemployment is bs. both were forecasts. if they got one wrong, then they probably got the other wrong too. Besides, its common sense that pumping money into the system will alleviate pain, at least in the short term. Longer term, we will have to pay the piper, but saying a stimulus package casued more unemployment is the most ridiculous thing i have heard. i take that back, its second to demon sheep.
The graph shows that the increase in number of public sector jobs led to know dramatic increase in private sector jobs. This is the opposite of what obama said. The majority of jobs created or saved were in the public sector, so we're basically just putting people in welfare jobs that have no positive effect on the real economy. Might as well just have people sit at home and mail them checks. Proof there is no multiplier effect.
I just kinda stumbled into this video somehow but wanted to point something out. I'm at the point of the video where you are showing a graph and saying "according to Barrack Obamas own admission we did worse with the stimulus and we would have been in a better situation without the recovery plan." There is something that has been stated many times (despite you clearly paying to this issue still missed) but has it ever occurred to you that the estimate that graph is portraying is far off?
What you call proof of a failed recovery plan in actuality is proof of bad estimations and predictions of unemployment numbers. This is common knowledge (and common sense) you somehow completely ignore. Either case is bad there is no doubt but the thesis of your entire argument and conclusions you draw are beyond flimsy it's actually willfully deceitful.
What ever happened to having honest discussions on policy without having to bend the truth so far to fit your political point of view? The past year has been nothing but lies "death panels" "march towards socialism" "fema death camps" (etc etc) and you are all too willing to pile on to the most deceitful era of politics in recent memory.
So wait....you call bullshit on figures relating to "jobs saved/gained" because of Liberal Thingy Number 12.....and yet you can so confidently blame .....a very shady looking graph showing more job loss directly ON Liberal Thingy Number 12?
Dude, that don't make no sense...even less sense that you being a climatologist...or listening to non-climatologists to decide if global warming is real. It's like going to my buddy Jim to find out if you have cancer rather than, a doctor.
With the parties muddled like this there has been no true representative government as the overwhelming majority are moderate and conservative. Not liberal nanny state progressives.
As for your voting bloc myth, the democrats uniformly voted down the republican alternative healthcare package without (GASP!) even reading it. So your theory is nonsense.
seriosly? are saying that democrats voted down all republican policies in the healthcare bill?
ok i know you are mostly kissing the ass of beck so this may come as a suprise to you, but there are already loads of republican polices already in the bill
the problem is as soon as the democrats say yes to something a republican wants, the republicans then turn round and say they dont want it and never have, you know why? because they only want democrats to fail, they dont care about good policy
OK now you're just being a complete moron. Yes, during the summer debate on healthcare Obama and the democrat unilaterally opposed tort reform and said opening up competition would have no impact on prices. So you're full of shit.
some policies that the republicans wanted that are now in the healthcare bill who vote down everything
Let families and businesses buy health insurance across state lines
Individuals, small businesses, and trade associations can pool together and get insurance at lower prices, the same way large corporations and labor unions do
Again, you're full of shit. Alot of that is NOT in the new healthcare bill. And there is still language that would create a backdoor for single payer. Also it still provides ferderal funding for abortions.
Please learn what the hell you are talking about before you run your mouth and look like an idiot.
well done you just proved your self to care more about one up manship than actual politics
my comment was correct when it was posted as i was clearly talking about the bill in congress, you then post a new comment after a NEW healthcare bill is made up which my comment was not about and then you claim i was talking about the new healthcare bill even though my comments where made before the new proposals were even made
No, I understood (as much as one can understand nonsense). It was just full of holes and quarter truths. I had no desire to bother to attempt to debunk such a complex melee of insinuation and anecdotal proofs. So I just decided to aggregate what I thought of what you wrote and my verdict was NONSENSE.
The long answer you'll never hear because I can't be arsed.
I never said that all democrats voted a certain way. Those are your words.
What does this have to so with what I said?
You said there is no difference in Republicans, which is demonstrably false. I proved it. There are liberal, moderate and conservative republicans just like the democrats. There are big government progressive republicans also.
Hrmm my only problem with your unemployment numbers section is that you're comparing actual numbers with predicted.
You are saying that the prediction by the administration is way off on job levels with the stimulus and then claiming it is valid to compare actuals against the suddenly reliable prediction for the numbers without the stimulus.
More likely the ratio of saved percentage is right and the numbers without the stimulus would be worse by the same ratio as predicted.
While I did kinda took that lightly...it was still a bogus number made up by the government that without the money spent, the jobless count would be "such and such" ... a completely made up number that looked good enough to them to scare people.
Also Obama is right! Liberal and conservative economist advisers are saying the stimulus worked. Phill Gramm, John McCains economical adviser from when he was running for president, is an example. Finally, the notion that the stimulus actually destroyed job is ridiculous! No economists agree with that!
As I pointed out in the last video, the graph you continue to show was an estimate based on the economy before the last quarter of 2008 statistics came out and revealed that the economy was MUCH worse than expected.
Theres is two types.Those that blast through work memorise and forget. Those that go through read a large amount around all areas and come out as 'smart' people. This is heavily not advisable these days as the former tend to get better grades and thats what its all about now..
Exactly, not to mention the fact that economics has descended into keynesian numerology, because it looks prettier and more tangible, as if macro was science and not BS sociology. The economics profession is screwed if it doesn't return to it's market philosophical roots.
Problem is we have done some strange things over the last 150yrs that really invalidate those roots.
For example, America used to be non-interentionalist. As most countries were. Britain for example did nothing during the Spanish/American war in 1900.
The facts of nuclear weapons and trade dependence for basic goods, not just luxuries means the landscapes changed and many of those early writings are invalid.
Most of those classic economic musings were based on rather simple mercantilism.
You 1/2 got my point. I am making the point they are not 'neo' enough. At least half the precepts hark back to outdated mercantilism. Especially when they start quoting the Wealth of nations in un-transcribed terms and advocate things like 0 tax. It smacks off what arguably was correct 300, even 200 years ago. But its not true today.
The world today is ~1000x smaller than those theories understood and has ~10x less resources per head and information exchange is instant. Massive game changers.
Um the principles of the wealth of nations apply today just as much. The wealth of nations was written in response to the mercantilism of the era.Mercantilism was a belief that precious metals in government coffers amounted to value.Today, leftists switch "precious metals" for manufactured goods.Although liberalism today doesn't put so much power in the hands of a central authority,it does have the same nationalistic views.Why is trading with the chinese different than trading with oklahomans?
What are you, 5 years old? You REALLY think unemployment is this bad because ppl are sitting at home CHOOSING not to work???? You take up a page & a half commenting, but you're talking out your ass! Im so very sure that the ppl who were fired or knocked back to part time CHOSE that...... Get a clue.
YES! Everyone could get a job with some level of pay right now. Unemployement occurs because people don't have enough incentives to get a job. Not because, "there are no jobs." Even when the economy is good, much of the population chooses not to work. WHy would they, if they feel like they don't need the money bad enough. Many people would rather live on a shoe string budget with their parents then work a job they can't stand for little pay. It has nothing to do with "no jobs available."
Soil and climate are not equal otherwise, Africa would just grow shit loads of wheat and never starve, and the US farmers would just grow shit loads of subsidised coffee and chocolate for not cost.
I'm not living in the USA, so I'm kind of nutral to this Obama/Stimulus discussion. But here you show that the prediction of their model for the unemployment numbers was completely off the book. Yet you use the same prediction model to show that the unemployment numbers now are higher than what they would have been without the stimulus packet... does that add up? Just wondering, I'm not really on the same level as you with most issues but I find it interesting nontheless, Cheers.
finally someone with intelligence of course the recession would have been worse without the stimulus every economist agrees on that fact the problem is the number of jobs is where the problem lies. Yes the Administration's numbers where wrong we all know that now but if u just look at what the stimulus did like allow for police officers and government workers who where going to lose there jobs to keep them. Also the quote from Obama like everything this jackass does was taken out of context
Distinguishing between austrian and canesian ecenomics is like distinguishing astrology and astronomy. Don't even give them the time of day when they say stupid shit like "no economist opposed the stimulis plan".
You're wrong, wrong, wrong, and the numbers prove it. This is the problem with idiots, when presented irrefutable evidence that stimulus doesn't work, they argue for more. How much more? You can't say, because since it's NEVER WORKED, the amount of money for successful stimulus can NEVER be known.
You point out that actual unemployment rose above both projected lines, this is true.
My problem is you then state that the economy would have been better off without the stimulas.
That may be true, but the only proof you submitted was the fact that the line that represented the projected without stimulas unemployment was lower than the actual result.
Exactly what does that prove, given that the estimates used to create that chart were obviously flawed?
Im a little disappointed with your take on the Fiorina advertisement because frankly, she is right on with the sentiment. Although, ironically, she too would likely be a RINO. But kudos because these notions of reducing the federal government influence & size are slowly pushing Republicans towards the Libertarian side of the political diamond!
How has the stimulus plan destroyed jobs already? We haven't had inflation or higher taxes, where is the drain on jobs coming from? In the future when taxes have to be raised and the dollar loses value it will cause problems, but not yet.
What Federal tax has been raised? They raised the sales tax on cigarets, that is the only Federal tax I know of that has been altered, do you know of other ones? You do know Obama and congress are only in charge of Federal taxes right?
I Agree that to think It causes problems now if you must be an idiot who believes things purely because they fit his petty politics rather than rational economics.
If you are willing to say jobs will be lost in the future due to sovereign debt, I disagree, but I am ALL ears as that view is based on *reason*.
If you are saying the act of deficit spending started loosing jobs from February then your a stupid fucker, or actually a clever whose trying to manipulate stupid fuckers.
@AHBritton That money has to come from somewhere. Or at least I should say that those resources have to come from somewhere. You have lots of economic activity and finite commodities going towards the american equivalent of the japanese Zombie corporations. Those resources could be going to much more productive parts of the economy. You can't create a job without at least potentially destroying another.
That's based on the premise that all public investments are mal-investments a very dubious one at best. Since there are plenty of examples of good public investments, Panama cannal, Hoover dam... the burden of proof is on you to show otherwise.
What is bad about Obama's stimulus is that America is very much a service economy, now so what you say about " resources could be going to much more productive parts of the economy" is replaced with cash simply going to China instead.
"You can't create a job without at least potentially destroying another." That's not entirely true, at least in the short run. The government can print and/or borrow money and use it to higher people or give it to someone else to higher someone. Since it was created or borrowed, from another country say, it is not necessarily diverted from some other domestic private source.
In the long run, if the government keeps printing a lot of money for an extended period of time it will eventually lead to a devaluing of the dollar, and borrowed money will eventually have to be repaid, or constantly rolled over accumulating interest. So it is true in the long run my main point is we haven't seen the long run yet. Obama hasn't had time to drive up inflation or decided to raise Federal taxes yet, although that could all change.
The damage is done immediately. Incentives are perversed immediately. Companies that were supposed to die live on as zombies. The rising tide of higher liquidity makes bad investments look more attractive, too. Waiting for the CPI numbers to change is missing the point. You are the uber keynesian. Economics isn't about pumping up numbers, it's about the philosophy of incentives and human relationships. Even the entire concept of unemployment is twisted into hocus pocus for political gain
@tkwelge The damage from what is done immediately? Incentive because of what? The auto industry zombie thing? Well you could be right. The gov't is probably gonna lose out, if it's worth it to offset the possible destruction of capital and value otherwise? I'm not so sure. Was Milton Friedman a Keynesian? He was for inflation targeting (CPI numbers). I also don't see how being skeptical of claims made from both sides makes me an umber-Keynesian.
If I was an umber-Keynesian (whatever that means, kind of econ-speak version of Red-Baiting) I would be demanding an even larger stimulus equal to some multiple of the difference between the real GDP and full employment GDP. But I'm guessing you are just using it as a vague insult, like everyone these days, "if you don't agree with me you are a Keynesian." Ha! I guess we are all Keynesians after all!
There is no such thing as full employment. What is full employment? When everybody has a job? Even when the economy is "good," much of the population doesn't work at all. Yes, somebody who believes that inflating the money supply boosts quality of life is a keynesian. I don't see how this is an ad hominem.
THe capital is already destroyed once it is diverted towards an industry that the economy would have otherwise shed. Those workers aren't available to feed the new up and coming industries. That investment money isn't free to invest in them. No, that money is needed for the welfare jobs of the last century. Milton Friedman was not for "inflation." He believed in a general increase in the money supply over time. He was for the abolishment of the federal reserve. I think you missed the point
You say anyone who thinks "inflating the money supply boosts quality of life is a keynesian" and that Milton Friedman "believed in a general increase in the money supply over time" in other words gradually inflating the money supply. Therefore he is a Keynesian. This isn't even my argument, many Austrian's use a version of this argument.
Speaking of New Zealand's policy of inflation targeting and it's beneficial effect on the nature of central banking, Milton said "It was the first time that anybody had explicitly adopted an inflation target. So that was something that everybody observed. And, secondly, it was so dramatically effective." I don't know why you are so determined to deny what Friedman obviously believed. His most famous work, Monetary History is ALL about inflation/deflation of the money supply and economic output.
@AHBritton there is a difference between philosophical concepts and pragmaticp prescriptions. I think that you aren't giving these people credit, when you oversimplify their position. Plus, we're getting a bit away from the point.
Why don't you understand the relationship between money and resources? Printing money does not print resources. And yes, diverting resources from other countries is bad too. We are all one world economy and the money belongs where it will be most efficiently used to maximize the highest level of happiness.
Are you an actual idiot, a real fool? Or are you just trolling? Did having a sp ace bar character inserted in between a word foil your comprehension? Or are you being Purlie because you know nothing and I mean FUCKING NOTHING about economics?
@tkwelge Again, I never said printing money MADE resources. So I don't think I need to defend that. If you believe the Friedman monetarists, avoiding deflation and keeping the stock of money up is necessary for a well functioning economy. If you're an Austrian well you might believe a variety of things. He was against the central bank, but if having a central bank was unavoidable he offered a series of remedies, such as stabilizing the prize of raw materials, etc.
Was not necessarily concerned with deflation. I think we would all agree to try and maximize happiness, and I don't think I know the answer how to do that, and I'm skeptical of people who claim to have the "answer." Whether those "answers" come from Keynesians, monetarists, Austrians, Rothbard, Krugman, Sowell, Obama, etc. What I'm mostly strongly against are sloppy arguments such as HTWW is fond of making.
And what about your lame arguments? What about your non arguments? You don't want answers. You've already decided that "stimulus" and "jobs" are what you want. Regardless of whether or not anybody would actually be willing to pay for those services without the government subsidy. Their earning money, so they must be adding value! Even though we know for a fact that nobody would pay for these jobs unless they were forced to.
Apparently if I don't immediately fall in line w/ some idealistic belief that claims to have every answer I'm "already decided" & somehow extra biased. You look at everything & assume that your world view has it explained. I realize that I don't know much and so I question a lot of things, I play devil's advocate a lot most of the time people just call me a stupid Obama loving liberal, even though I voted for the libertarian candidate Bob Barr in the last election... I just LOOOOVEEEE stimulus
that's why I support politicians against it. I just looooove Obama, even though I didn't vote for him. I happen to request that people justify their beliefs whether or not I agree with them. I vote libertarian because I tend to think they're right. Not because I'm positive they are right... I happen to try and use my brain to attack peoples arguments because most people just get defensive and don't seem to know what they are talking about
You only need to look at your comments to know what you're about. You have posted here more than anybody else, and you haven't convinced a single person of dick or answered any real hard questions.
You stated that "stimulus" money (ie money that had to be borrowed from a bank, which does increase the money supply through the creation of credit) could be used to create a job and then that job would be a "benefit" to society simply because money was moving through hands. That's pretty close to stating that printing money creates resources. You act as if pumping up economic numbers is inherently a good thing. And Friedman was against both inflation and deflation in the long run.
Friedman believed that increasing the money stock (pumping up the numbers as you call it) was beneficial in a recession. He believed that major recessions and depressions could basically be fixed by monetary policy, the printing of money. He was against stimulus because he thought it was unnecessary. Any benefit it created was due to it's calling on the Fed to print money for it. In other words, fiscal policy might inadvertently help by effecting monetary policy... but was unnecessary.
I'm all for keeping interest rates lower during recessions (or letting a natural process set the interest rate), but deficit spending and other "emergency measures" are something entirely different. Ideally, the government wouldn't even set the interest rate.
There are better ways to keep the money supply stable. Our current system is too political, and the federal reserve has to accept some blame for lowering interests rates while ignoring asset class inflation. It would be better if we did not have to rely on an inherently political institution to toy with our money supply.
The current system is ment to be technocratic & non-political. Milton favored having a computer program control the stock of money. Although this has problems because it seems inflexible and it would be hard to agree on the "right" algorithm on which to run it. The best option I've heard so far for creating some sort of non-fiat system is by loosening asset taxes & restrictions, such as taxes on precious metals, allowing people to easily store value by other methods.
There are a couple of issues w/ this about which I am skeptical. First (maybe even you would agree w/ this) it requires that the gov't has the will & ability to pull it off smoothly. There are many ways this could be screwed up. If it is widely known that these measures are an explicit, or implicit, weakening of American support for the dollar, it could theoretically collapse the dollar. This would be catastrophic as the majority of Americans...
already storing their value in US currency, scramble to unload Fed notes this would possibly be the worst economic catastrophe in US history. Although it's possible that pressure over time could slowly and stealthily move us towards a more free-banking system without this catastrophe. I'm not sure which I think is more likely. As I said, it requires the gov't to pull it off just right and seems like a fragile process fragility not being something the gov't is known for handling well.
Fair tax is a different concern. I'm talking more about the banking/fiat monetary system. The concern over the nature of the Federal Reserve and fiat monetary system is completely aside from the problems of taxation and doesn't really deal with peoples problems with fractional reserve banking.
It doesn't seem that impossible to me at all. You would probably have to set the standard at a rate that would keep the new gold based dollars equal to the value of the old dollars. Over time, the price would change. Countries have gone off and on the gold standard before. Japan comes to mind. Even during the gold standard days, economies often let the dollar float away from gold values. It's not unheard of. I'm not even suggesting we use a gold standard either.
Again, Friedman believed that in a recession money needed to be printed to offset the contraction of credit. He believed printing money didn't "create" resources, but helped keep production and investment going during a recession.
Even if it wasn't a fiat currency, interest rates would naturally decline during a recession. He suggested that the federal reserve keep interest rates low in the event of a recession to copy what would naturally happen in the absence of a federal reserve. He was simply saying that federal reserves should mimic natural systems. You kind of misunderstood that.
The only reason that friedman ever supported the idea that central banks should lower interest rates during recessions was that they needx to replicate what would occur under an uncontrolled market. He was not advocating government action but replication of what would occur in the absence of government action.
@tkwelge Where has Milton Friedman EVER said this was the reason for keeping the money supply from contracting? If you can find an example I would be extremely interested.
The monetarist prescription regarding Federal Reserve policy was not based on some abstract conception, or even historical analysis, of the mechanisms that free-banking systems had developed.
It was based on Anna Schwartz and his empirical and historical research in "A Monetary History of the United States" relating to the growth and contraction of the high-powered money stock.
If you want a good mid career analysis of what Friedman and Schwartz thought about the debate related to Central Banking vs. Free-Banking you should read "Has Government Any Role in Money?"
During quite a few years prior to his death Friedman would often say that the system he would prefer is a computer program that automatically grows the money stock at a specific rate, hardly some laissez-faire natural state of banking.
It seems to me the free-market reacts in direct opposition to Friedman's Central Bank recommendations. I am interest why you think in an economic downturn that private banks would decide to LOWER the interest they lend at rather than increase it.
Despite people's demand for paper money, what incentive does the bank have to increase its leveraging and diminish the reserves/deposit ratio instead of limit its loans and shore up its deposits?
@tkwelge If borrowing naturally slows, interest rates naturally drop, why does the Fed have to perform open market operations to lower it? Why does the stock of money and credit collapse? Why do banks suddenly experience liquidity crises? Why did the overnight lending market cease up? If people have all this extra cash to lend, why did lending standards INCREASE? Why did credit card rates and standards INCREASE?
If financial institutions have so much money to lend and no borrows the market should be swimming in liquidity, begging people to borrow. Where did the money go?
Why does Friedman think the Fed should do ANYTHING if this is naturally regulating? If we had a free-banking system, most likely based on commodities and not fiduciary, it is not like banks could just print more gold.
Do they just start printing more inside-money & flood the market? What would be in it for the banks to leverage themselves like this? This is what the Fed does, provide liquidity to the market & act as lender of last resort. Those are the main reasons why Friedman was skeptical about doing away with the Fed. He didn't believe that he'd seen it satisfactorily demonstrated that markets would develop this on their own, at least fast enough to prevent a lot of pain & demand for political action
In the absence of a fed, after a while, hte banks that hadn't leverraged themselves as bad would be in a position to lend money at lower rates and absorb the failed banks. New banks would also get in on the act too. In our current system, everyone waits for cues from the fed. The sysem would function in completely different ways without the tfed, and I think that we should seriously consider alternatives.Plus, you ignore that banks would not have leveraged themselves as much without the fed.
@tkwelge I know that those are arguments people make, and ones that Friedman and Schwartz acknowledge in "Has Government Any Role in Money?" they say that they are still interesting question for study in 1986 and that possibly the existence of certain types of real money and inflation adjusted contracts that have been recognized as deposits by certain institutions might provide interesting test cases.
At the time of its writing they were neither too impressed by historical cases of supposed "free banking" or convinced of its applicability to our current financial framework. Until his death he was not too convinced by these arguments despite his sympathy for their ideological underpinnings.
@AHBritton I don't really consider myself a true friedmanite for exactly that reason. You seem to be awfully focused on what milton friedman said, although I believed that he was often absorbed into pragmatic converstions that were outside of the philosophy that he often ignored. I agree. My biggest point is that there is no evidence that central banking really helps anyone besides rich bankers who are borrowing at near 0% and lending at as much 9%. What good does that do the common man?
@AHBritton This point you make disproves the entire idea tha tthe fed can lower the real interest rate for borrowers. The fed succeeded in lowering the rate that banks and big corporations can borrow their money at, but the real interest rate for regular civilian borrowers still went up. The federal reserve is impotent to help out real people and can only bail out institutions. In answer to your questions, I would point out that it is a process and not soething that occurs overnight.
@tkwelge The point is the market COMPLETELY seized up. I don't know if you remember but in the early days of the recession the overnight lending market STOPPED! What normally traded tens and undress of billions of dollars daily STOPPED! That is the reason for the lender of last resort. It doesn't only help banks, businesses and corporations were unable to make payroll. Anyone who did not have almost entirely liquid assets was screwed.
These same types of things happened during another time period know as the Great Depression. In this instance they decided that he Fed should not print money or act as lender of last resort for banks. They ALLOWED the money supply to contract in favor of trying to stop the flight of gold. How did that work out? Do you completely deny the research in a Monetary History of the United States 1867-1960?
@AHBritton Yes, existing on the gold standard and then initiating the policy of godl hoarding was a bad idea. I'm not arguing agasint taht fact. Don't pretend that arguing against the gold standard and simultaneous gold hoarding is the same thing as a "natural" banking system.
@AHBritton Yes, you are correct. However, I'm talking about the long term, not just the immediate circumstances. I think that more businesses should have gone under. Plus you continue to ignore the fact that the banks wouldn't have become that leveraged in the absence of the government incentives.
@AHBritton It's pretty much common sense that a bank would lower the interest rate as the rate of borrowing fell and as a consequence saving grew. The natural interest rate would fall.
You seriously expect every unemployed person, even those not looking for a job, to register weekly at a website or call the government by phone. And you expect the government to spend money maintaining a website and phone verification system and to spend money prodding people to use them? What? Do you know how they currently tabulate unemployment numbers? Even if you did implement this system it would be a horrible statistical model.
My method of being accounted for (unemployed) is to spam all political ads on Y/T that seem to be from yet more career politicians. Crude.....yes. Effective? eh, keeps my mind off the bills not getting paid.
Until the banks start lending money, there's 10's of 1000's of us construction workers NOT working. At a guess, only 1/3 to 1/4 of us are drawing unemployment, the rest of us are competing with "immigrants" for $8 dollars an hour.
I wonder how hungry citizens will have to get before they start forming bands and just go house to house and business to business "ending" every illegal they find?
bring a brit, i know oh to well about how projected numbers can heavily be underestimated, just because the government says "with/without it the max will be ...%" doesnt mean thats right, thats a guess basically.
For example, "immigration to ... will be 200,000 in 5 years" but it could actually be 1million in 5 years. Just because the projected numbers are off, you cant say it didnt work, for all we know, it could be even higher without the support.
this dude sucks. it wasn't a demon sheep. it was a wolf in disguise. and omg that was the worse logic ever with what he didwith the chart. "with out the simulis we did worse. blah blah blah" dude STFU. please just caue it's higher than what was predicted doesn't mean it didn't work. it means that it was worse than we thought. i honesly just want to punch him in the balls. Gb is not a scam, ur just an idiot.
I'm not sure if others have mentioned this in the comments (I'm sure many must have), but I just wanted to point out a small logic fallacy in your initial argument about jobs lost using the graph. Also keep in mind that I vehemently hate the Obama administratino ;)
While the actual unemployment rate did increase beyond what was predicted it would be WITH the stimulus plan, it was also higher than was predicted without. Essentially this just means all estimates were off... (continued)
so we can't say with certainty that the stimulus made us lose more jobs, hell without the stimulus the spike may have been even higher. However on a personal note I do believe the "stimulus" to be one of the greatest financial fiascos our nation has ever seen, and that it has in all likelihood cost a great deal of jobs. However, just as we cannot predict the number of jobs saved, in this instance this graph can not tell us the number of jobs lost.
If Obama predicts employment will be 8% with the stimulus and 9% without and it ends up going to 9% with the stimulus is it unreasonable to think that we still wouldn't necessarily have been better off without the stimulus and that unemployment would still at least be equal too or greater than what it is now without the stimulus? In other words why are we assuming the stimulus plan cost us jobs?
Although your argument is very flawed, there is an underlying point. Conservatives say that Obama's plans will destroy U.S. jobs because it will raise taxes and cause inflation. Neither of which have happened yet (unless you think the job ills are caused by the tobacco tax). Because I feel I must always say this when commenting here I AM NOT A LIBERAL!
@AHBritton. We will probably see more inflation once the economy resettles, and any rebound will now be tempered by inflation, and the fact that we have to make payments to the debt. Also, most of these jobs being "created or saved" aren't jobs demanded by people in the marketplace by people trying to fulfill their own interests, but fake, arbitrary jobs created with subsidy from people who have no choice but to pay it. A job isn't a job. Especially not a government subsidized job.
I partly agree with what you are saying. My point was that arguably none of these job destroying processes were really happening yet. So far no major tax hikes or inflation, and I don't really buy the diversion of jobs argument. With unemployment as high as it is businesses are having no trouble finding qualified employees if they want them. And government jobs are jobs... silly o claim they are not. You may think they are inefficient, unnecessary, redundant, ect. But that is not the definition
@AHBritton Silly to claim that they aren't real jobs eh? So if the government pays somebody to produce something nobody wants, taking resources away from the things that people actually do want, while printing more money to do all of this, you're telling me that there won't be less actual relevant output? This is similar to the claim that "WW2 got us out of the depression." Humans can't live in cars and eat bullets. On paper it looked great, but to the average american rationing goods......
"So if the government pays somebody to produce something nobody wants" Another assumption. There is plenty of things that need doing in America atm. Increasing the % of renewable energy production is one, and its a great time to do it to as prices for all materials are low.
How is spending more money on the same thing (energy production) an immediate need of the US? We could have spent more of the stimulus money on real infrastructure projects, but even then, without a cost benefit analysis (and probably even with a cost benefit analysis), it's all speculative. Remember, the government is spending money that they acquired through theft, so most of it goes towards buyinng more votes, pleasing special interests, and expanding the overall reach and influence of govt
Energy production is bricks and mortar stuff. its everything. The industrial economy is so good because of the high energy input. Everyone puts in a small amount of labour and gets everything they need and more in return thanks to industrial energy. Energy demand has only one way to go and that's up.
US electricity is tight against the limits. Its not diverse too, given the depressed commodity prices its an excellent time to change that.
There are plenty of things that occur within the sphere of human events that have nothing do with energy. Energy is just another good. Saying that "energy is the cornerstone of our economy" is essentially nonsense. This is just sector fetishism. There is no "cornerstone" of the economy. All parts are equally relevant or exchangeable.
Energy from chemicals IS the very essence of industrialisation. Energy tracks GDP point by point. If you cannot see that energy is the SOLE TOTAL AND COMPLETE cause of why we can get 10 loaves of bread for an hour at minimum wage in 2010, as opposed to 5 loaves of bread for a weeks wage 200yrs ago then go back and learn economics 101. I am actually staggered you just said what you said.
I just cannot believe it. I actually cannot believe you just wrote that.
@CmdrTobs You should read "A farewell to alms" in which the author goes into great detail to show that the industrial revolution had more to do with culture than technology or resources, which had existed more or less all alnog even through the ancient period. It's the way those resources are utilized that counts, not how many resources you have. Countries with lots of natural resources are often dirt poor. Most countries in Africa have more resources at their siposal than japan.
@tkwelge You should read Guns Germs &steel or even a few George sowell books on development. Much more substantive and evidence based than a piece of Ernst Hemingway?? fiction. (I have the book with a Oliver twist keep sake box gathering dust.)
Btw your prof in comparing a resource rich African country to Japan is crazy. Having loads of gold/diamonds and selenium etc... is useless compared to having a temperate climate that can grow cereal crops.
@CmdrTobsI've read Guns Germs and steel as well as collapse, and i have great respect for Jared Diamond, and A farewell to alms was written as a counter to GG&Susing the same meticulous approach that diamond uses to make his arguments.You're thinking of "A Farewell to Arms" which is a different book.
Also you're point about cereal crops would only apply if we were talking about ancient cultures,and if you're going to use diamond, you'd have to point out that africa has a bigger east/west axis.
@tkwelge Japan wasn't exposed to proper farming technique until china dn korea made contact around 500 bc. This is thousands of years after true civilization had arisen in north africa. Of course, I was speaking about modern ivilization so any discussion of ancients should be left to another discussion.
Serial crops are still of vital importance today. Its the chief reason for much of the famines. In fact unstable Monsoon climates and lack of cereal crops are the number 1# reason for famines in many climates.
Not to mention lack of all farm animals (as we know them) in Africa.
@CmdrTobs Nowadays, you can import most anything that you need. Hensce the japanese response of importing everything that it can't get from itself, like oil, and exporting what it can. Even countries with trade deficits tend tro do well enought to turn into modern economies. In the new globablized world, if you can convince anybody that anything you do is worthwhile, you can get anything that you can't supply for yourself. Products chase demand, and supply creates its own demand somewhere.
Energy production is only "brick and mortar" if you rely on particularly large energy consumption to fuel your quality of life. A lot of people do, but people tend towards efficiency in their lives, and most people have a limit to their potential energy consumption. It's just one part of the overall scheme.
You make puerile comments about me accidentally hitting the space key, yet you leave this gibberish for me to see.
"[only] if you rely on particularly large energy consumption to fuel your quality of life" - You stupid monkey. Your quality of life is at total parity with your energy use. Given that your probably western, its through the fucking roof.
"but people tend towards efficiency in their lives" WTF?
As opposed to not 'tending towards efficiency outside your life'. Moron.
You are a fucking retard, so don't start insulting me. My quality of life isn't directly related to energy. Want an example? The US has a far more energy intensive lifestyle than people in many other counttries. Would you argue that we inherently have a higher quality of life? The only thing more energy does is allow you to inrease your excess. With cheap oil, you can live forty miles away from work where the land is cheap. When oil is more scarce, you just live closer to work.
Oh it's not warming? Then good sir explain why the ice is melting faster......
Sara3346 5 months ago
Your little unemployment chart is misleading and deceptive. Those two curves, the with and w/o the stimulus curves were mere projections. With economics there is always a significant fudge factor. Just because unemployment did go higher than the projected figures proves nothing. To think that not implementing the stimulus would have been better for the economy is patently absurd no matter what charts or graphs you may use
ajman411 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Nice job on the video looks good. When you have time come visit my channel!
TheHcgdietplan 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Nice job on the video looks good. When you have time come visit my channel!
FatReleaseSystem 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Nice job on the video looks good. When you have time come visit my channel!
850Nexus 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Nice job on the video looks good. When you have time come visit my channel!
chocolatediet11 9 months ago
economists created the problem in the first place.
cypress1337 10 months ago
well its definitely more polluted than it was a century ago
nomoko445 1 year ago
Why did I even watch this shit?
drvertigo 1 year ago
Some data does suggest that earths slight warming may just be a trend of earths natural warming and cooling cycles.
winnertl 1 year ago
Comment removed
winnertl 1 year ago
Comment removed
winnertl 1 year ago
"Global warming a total scam" - Have you studied science at all? Even if you look past all the political games and hype of it all, the evidence and science of it is still there.
quantum64 1 year ago
Finally! Someone who gets it and backs it up with facts. Well done.
Apolyion 1 year ago
Fuck politicians. They're ALL full of shit. And by the way, there's actual scientific proof that global warming is real. Since the late 1800's, global temperatures have gone up exponentially. Of course, the politicians have been "fudging" the proof to get more attention, yes, BUT the actual scientists who know what they're doing have legitimate evidence of global warming. Don't worry, we won't destroy the planet, it will destroy us. We're just an itch on it's surface, about to be scratched off.
levimoreno 1 year ago
Why do you hate the term middle class?
klutterkicker 1 year ago
Get off the stage! We want demon sheep!
metalat3m 1 year ago
The report sited was an estimate issued by Christine Romer prior to Barack Obama becoming President. The report said actual results would depend on what Congress finally agreed. Well Congress agreed on a watered down version. Unemployment was already over 8% before the bill was finally signed into law. Remember we were losing over 500,000 a month during the last several months of the Bush presidency. Things were so bad the Republicans did not want Bush or Cheney at the Republican convention.
cbman739 1 year ago
Christine O'donnel hired the demon sheep ad creators to work on her campaign.
This is the same Christine that talked about her satanic altar experience with on the Bill Maher show. Let's see wasn't their a movie about a demon possesed car,
called Christine? Ahhhh!!!.
cbman739 1 year ago
QUESTION .......who stood in silence whilst the worst economic crisis in recent world history unfolded? all Obama has been trying to do is clean the poo off the fan that Bush and his cohorts spent 8 years shitting on. Thats a tough job......Global warming....your head is buried in the clean white republican sand young sprout.
Any person with half a neuron of sense would not gamble the possibility of human impact on the worlds environment.
U= How the World Jerks
Aerospacedu 1 year ago
Funny that anyone would take information on how the world works from a guy who has never left school. No Nancy being a TA does not count.
sapperfied 1 year ago
your point about the stimulus causing more unemployment is bs. both were forecasts. if they got one wrong, then they probably got the other wrong too. Besides, its common sense that pumping money into the system will alleviate pain, at least in the short term. Longer term, we will have to pay the piper, but saying a stimulus package casued more unemployment is the most ridiculous thing i have heard. i take that back, its second to demon sheep.
cmacblue42 1 year ago
Is Doren a jackass? Of COURSE the point is that the administration is fudging all numbers.
Pillzbug 1 year ago
The graph shows that the increase in number of public sector jobs led to know dramatic increase in private sector jobs. This is the opposite of what obama said. The majority of jobs created or saved were in the public sector, so we're basically just putting people in welfare jobs that have no positive effect on the real economy. Might as well just have people sit at home and mail them checks. Proof there is no multiplier effect.
tkwelge 1 year ago
I just kinda stumbled into this video somehow but wanted to point something out. I'm at the point of the video where you are showing a graph and saying "according to Barrack Obamas own admission we did worse with the stimulus and we would have been in a better situation without the recovery plan." There is something that has been stated many times (despite you clearly paying to this issue still missed) but has it ever occurred to you that the estimate that graph is portraying is far off?
collinsullivan 1 year ago
What you call proof of a failed recovery plan in actuality is proof of bad estimations and predictions of unemployment numbers. This is common knowledge (and common sense) you somehow completely ignore. Either case is bad there is no doubt but the thesis of your entire argument and conclusions you draw are beyond flimsy it's actually willfully deceitful.
collinsullivan 1 year ago
What ever happened to having honest discussions on policy without having to bend the truth so far to fit your political point of view? The past year has been nothing but lies "death panels" "march towards socialism" "fema death camps" (etc etc) and you are all too willing to pile on to the most deceitful era of politics in recent memory.
collinsullivan 1 year ago
I don't watch glenn beck.
tkwelge 1 year ago
So wait....you call bullshit on figures relating to "jobs saved/gained" because of Liberal Thingy Number 12.....and yet you can so confidently blame .....a very shady looking graph showing more job loss directly ON Liberal Thingy Number 12?
Dude, that don't make no sense...even less sense that you being a climatologist...or listening to non-climatologists to decide if global warming is real. It's like going to my buddy Jim to find out if you have cancer rather than, a doctor.
Eldeecue 1 year ago
Sheep? Sheep! SHEEPPPP!!!!!!
x.x
Scotish223332 1 year ago 2
LOL at lefty asshats that claim to know about economics and not even understand the term "winners and losers".
tubaboy71 1 year ago
With the parties muddled like this there has been no true representative government as the overwhelming majority are moderate and conservative. Not liberal nanny state progressives.
As for your voting bloc myth, the democrats uniformly voted down the republican alternative healthcare package without (GASP!) even reading it. So your theory is nonsense.
sorrian 1 year ago
seriosly? are saying that democrats voted down all republican policies in the healthcare bill?
ok i know you are mostly kissing the ass of beck so this may come as a suprise to you, but there are already loads of republican polices already in the bill
the problem is as soon as the democrats say yes to something a republican wants, the republicans then turn round and say they dont want it and never have, you know why? because they only want democrats to fail, they dont care about good policy
BGDPPL 1 year ago
OK now you're just being a complete moron. Yes, during the summer debate on healthcare Obama and the democrat unilaterally opposed tort reform and said opening up competition would have no impact on prices. So you're full of shit.
sorrian 1 year ago
@sorrian
some policies that the republicans wanted that are now in the healthcare bill who vote down everything
Let families and businesses buy health insurance across state lines
Individuals, small businesses, and trade associations can pool together and get insurance at lower prices, the same way large corporations and labor unions do
States can make their own reforms to lower costs
End junk lawsuits
The tax break for employer-sponsored insurance
AND they got rid of the public plan!
BGDPPL 1 year ago
Again, you're full of shit. Alot of that is NOT in the new healthcare bill. And there is still language that would create a backdoor for single payer. Also it still provides ferderal funding for abortions.
Please learn what the hell you are talking about before you run your mouth and look like an idiot.
sorrian 1 year ago
well done you just proved your self to care more about one up manship than actual politics
my comment was correct when it was posted as i was clearly talking about the bill in congress, you then post a new comment after a NEW healthcare bill is made up which my comment was not about and then you claim i was talking about the new healthcare bill even though my comments where made before the new proposals were even made
you are pathetic
BGDPPL 1 year ago
No. What you just said was TOTAL nonsense.
CmdrTobs 1 year ago
Just because you're too stupid to understand the reality of what I said, doesn't make it nonsense.
sorrian 1 year ago
No, I understood (as much as one can understand nonsense). It was just full of holes and quarter truths. I had no desire to bother to attempt to debunk such a complex melee of insinuation and anecdotal proofs. So I just decided to aggregate what I thought of what you wrote and my verdict was NONSENSE.
The long answer you'll never hear because I can't be arsed.
CmdrTobs 1 year ago
I never said that all democrats voted a certain way. Those are your words.
What does this have to so with what I said?
You said there is no difference in Republicans, which is demonstrably false. I proved it. There are liberal, moderate and conservative republicans just like the democrats. There are big government progressive republicans also.
sorrian 1 year ago
Hrmm my only problem with your unemployment numbers section is that you're comparing actual numbers with predicted.
You are saying that the prediction by the administration is way off on job levels with the stimulus and then claiming it is valid to compare actuals against the suddenly reliable prediction for the numbers without the stimulus.
More likely the ratio of saved percentage is right and the numbers without the stimulus would be worse by the same ratio as predicted.
KaiLoi69 1 year ago
lee, If the graph's stimulus plan projections were innacurate how do you know it's non-stimulus projections were accurate?
thewindhamdude100 1 year ago
So, even GreenPeace knows the Warmers are a herd of Useful Idiots led by liars and political scam artists?
HILARIOUS.
TylerNull 1 year ago
The demon sheep will kill us!
ArswawWorldofWarcraf 1 year ago 2
1:40 Anyone still think Bush is the worst ever? Didn't think so.
Please don't answer this if your a libtard.
mainestategop 1 year ago 3
Really? Are serious? That Graph at 1:40 spoke to you did it? :)
CmdrTobs 1 year ago
While I did kinda took that lightly...it was still a bogus number made up by the government that without the money spent, the jobless count would be "such and such" ... a completely made up number that looked good enough to them to scare people.
taylor22222222 1 year ago
@taylor22222222 and would you say that if was made up if McCain were prez?
mainestategop 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Also Obama is right! Liberal and conservative economist advisers are saying the stimulus worked. Phill Gramm, John McCains economical adviser from when he was running for president, is an example. Finally, the notion that the stimulus actually destroyed job is ridiculous! No economists agree with that!
jesseb137 1 year ago
As I pointed out in the last video, the graph you continue to show was an estimate based on the economy before the last quarter of 2008 statistics came out and revealed that the economy was MUCH worse than expected.
jesseb137 1 year ago
Really? Wow. I highly recommend a trip to the library.
CmdrTobs 1 year ago
Why's that?
scrappmutt2 1 year ago
Theres is two types.Those that blast through work memorise and forget. Those that go through read a large amount around all areas and come out as 'smart' people. This is heavily not advisable these days as the former tend to get better grades and thats what its all about now..
CmdrTobs 1 year ago
Exactly, not to mention the fact that economics has descended into keynesian numerology, because it looks prettier and more tangible, as if macro was science and not BS sociology. The economics profession is screwed if it doesn't return to it's market philosophical roots.
tkwelge 1 year ago
Problem is we have done some strange things over the last 150yrs that really invalidate those roots.
For example, America used to be non-interentionalist. As most countries were. Britain for example did nothing during the Spanish/American war in 1900.
The facts of nuclear weapons and trade dependence for basic goods, not just luxuries means the landscapes changed and many of those early writings are invalid.
Most of those classic economic musings were based on rather simple mercantilism.
CmdrTobs 1 year ago
No, free market ideology was developed in response to the stupidity of mercantilism. Leftists today could even be considered neo mercantilists.
tkwelge 1 year ago
You 1/2 got my point. I am making the point they are not 'neo' enough. At least half the precepts hark back to outdated mercantilism. Especially when they start quoting the Wealth of nations in un-transcribed terms and advocate things like 0 tax. It smacks off what arguably was correct 300, even 200 years ago. But its not true today.
The world today is ~1000x smaller than those theories understood and has ~10x less resources per head and information exchange is instant. Massive game changers.
CmdrTobs 1 year ago
Um the principles of the wealth of nations apply today just as much. The wealth of nations was written in response to the mercantilism of the era.Mercantilism was a belief that precious metals in government coffers amounted to value.Today, leftists switch "precious metals" for manufactured goods.Although liberalism today doesn't put so much power in the hands of a central authority,it does have the same nationalistic views.Why is trading with the chinese different than trading with oklahomans?
tkwelge 1 year ago
Leftist today are not mercantilists in any form.
Its the free market & free trade fundamentalists who are the Neo merchantilists. Who have presided over the de-industrialisation of America.
CmdrTobs 1 year ago
Economic protectionism and nationalism aren't "mercantilistic?"
tkwelge 1 year ago
What are you, 5 years old? You REALLY think unemployment is this bad because ppl are sitting at home CHOOSING not to work???? You take up a page & a half commenting, but you're talking out your ass! Im so very sure that the ppl who were fired or knocked back to part time CHOSE that...... Get a clue.
taffygirlgood 1 year ago
YES! Everyone could get a job with some level of pay right now. Unemployement occurs because people don't have enough incentives to get a job. Not because, "there are no jobs." Even when the economy is good, much of the population chooses not to work. WHy would they, if they feel like they don't need the money bad enough. Many people would rather live on a shoe string budget with their parents then work a job they can't stand for little pay. It has nothing to do with "no jobs available."
tkwelge 1 year ago
Soil and climate are not equal otherwise, Africa would just grow shit loads of wheat and never starve, and the US farmers would just grow shit loads of subsidised coffee and chocolate for not cost.
CmdrTobs 1 year ago
After watching Glenn Beck yesterday w/ Finirinnia (sp) & Chuck Davour........I think Dauvor will win.
AJAX556 1 year ago
Obama is a liar because his whole movement and ideology is built on lies.
toddwoodamerican 1 year ago
@todd
That's statist political theory for you.
blapperz 1 year ago
The sky is warming! THE SKY IS WARMING! We must go and tell the president! ~Chicken Little
JohananRaatz 1 year ago
Theres a dirt sortage over here? holy crap i wasnt infomed!
Wait what?
Outlawcarl 1 year ago
Economists agreed, and intelligence shows Iraq has weapons of mass destruction....
RebelKain 1 year ago
I'm not living in the USA, so I'm kind of nutral to this Obama/Stimulus discussion. But here you show that the prediction of their model for the unemployment numbers was completely off the book. Yet you use the same prediction model to show that the unemployment numbers now are higher than what they would have been without the stimulus packet... does that add up? Just wondering, I'm not really on the same level as you with most issues but I find it interesting nontheless, Cheers.
schmicc 2 years ago
finally someone with intelligence of course the recession would have been worse without the stimulus every economist agrees on that fact the problem is the number of jobs is where the problem lies. Yes the Administration's numbers where wrong we all know that now but if u just look at what the stimulus did like allow for police officers and government workers who where going to lose there jobs to keep them. Also the quote from Obama like everything this jackass does was taken out of context
vandreadparty 1 year ago
"of course the recession would have been worse without the stimulus every economist agrees on that fact"
Ummm, I'm pretty sure no Austrian Economist would say the stimulis helped...but nice try.
bucjason 1 year ago
@buc
Distinguishing between austrian and canesian ecenomics is like distinguishing astrology and astronomy. Don't even give them the time of day when they say stupid shit like "no economist opposed the stimulis plan".
blapperz 1 year ago
van:
You're wrong, wrong, wrong, and the numbers prove it. This is the problem with idiots, when presented irrefutable evidence that stimulus doesn't work, they argue for more. How much more? You can't say, because since it's NEVER WORKED, the amount of money for successful stimulus can NEVER be known.
captaindiesalot 1 year ago
@HTWW
1 Question about this video:
You point out that actual unemployment rose above both projected lines, this is true.
My problem is you then state that the economy would have been better off without the stimulas.
That may be true, but the only proof you submitted was the fact that the line that represented the projected without stimulas unemployment was lower than the actual result.
Exactly what does that prove, given that the estimates used to create that chart were obviously flawed?
Okbran 2 years ago
Im a little disappointed with your take on the Fiorina advertisement because frankly, she is right on with the sentiment. Although, ironically, she too would likely be a RINO. But kudos because these notions of reducing the federal government influence & size are slowly pushing Republicans towards the Libertarian side of the political diamond!
freemarketcapitalist 2 years ago
How has the stimulus plan destroyed jobs already? We haven't had inflation or higher taxes, where is the drain on jobs coming from? In the future when taxes have to be raised and the dollar loses value it will cause problems, but not yet.
AHBritton 2 years ago
@AHBritton haven't had higher taxes? hahaha.... what world are YOU living in? I know I'm not the only one who's taxes have raised.
StrengthFromAbove83 2 years ago
What Federal tax has been raised? They raised the sales tax on cigarets, that is the only Federal tax I know of that has been altered, do you know of other ones? You do know Obama and congress are only in charge of Federal taxes right?
AHBritton 2 years ago
I Agree that to think It causes problems now if you must be an idiot who believes things purely because they fit his petty politics rather than rational economics.
If you are willing to say jobs will be lost in the future due to sovereign debt, I disagree, but I am ALL ears as that view is based on *reason*.
If you are saying the act of deficit spending started loosing jobs from February then your a stupid fucker, or actually a clever whose trying to manipulate stupid fuckers.
CmdrTobs 1 year ago
@AHBritton That money has to come from somewhere. Or at least I should say that those resources have to come from somewhere. You have lots of economic activity and finite commodities going towards the american equivalent of the japanese Zombie corporations. Those resources could be going to much more productive parts of the economy. You can't create a job without at least potentially destroying another.
tkwelge 1 year ago
That's based on the premise that all public investments are mal-investments a very dubious one at best. Since there are plenty of examples of good public investments, Panama cannal, Hoover dam... the burden of proof is on you to show otherwise.
What is bad about Obama's stimulus is that America is very much a service economy, now so what you say about " resources could be going to much more productive parts of the economy" is replaced with cash simply going to China instead.
CmdrTobs 1 year ago
"You can't create a job without at least potentially destroying another." That's not entirely true, at least in the short run. The government can print and/or borrow money and use it to higher people or give it to someone else to higher someone. Since it was created or borrowed, from another country say, it is not necessarily diverted from some other domestic private source.
AHBritton 1 year ago
In the long run, if the government keeps printing a lot of money for an extended period of time it will eventually lead to a devaluing of the dollar, and borrowed money will eventually have to be repaid, or constantly rolled over accumulating interest. So it is true in the long run my main point is we haven't seen the long run yet. Obama hasn't had time to drive up inflation or decided to raise Federal taxes yet, although that could all change.
AHBritton 1 year ago
The damage is done immediately. Incentives are perversed immediately. Companies that were supposed to die live on as zombies. The rising tide of higher liquidity makes bad investments look more attractive, too. Waiting for the CPI numbers to change is missing the point. You are the uber keynesian. Economics isn't about pumping up numbers, it's about the philosophy of incentives and human relationships. Even the entire concept of unemployment is twisted into hocus pocus for political gain
tkwelge 1 year ago
@tkwelge The damage from what is done immediately? Incentive because of what? The auto industry zombie thing? Well you could be right. The gov't is probably gonna lose out, if it's worth it to offset the possible destruction of capital and value otherwise? I'm not so sure. Was Milton Friedman a Keynesian? He was for inflation targeting (CPI numbers). I also don't see how being skeptical of claims made from both sides makes me an umber-Keynesian.
AHBritton 1 year ago
If I was an umber-Keynesian (whatever that means, kind of econ-speak version of Red-Baiting) I would be demanding an even larger stimulus equal to some multiple of the difference between the real GDP and full employment GDP. But I'm guessing you are just using it as a vague insult, like everyone these days, "if you don't agree with me you are a Keynesian." Ha! I guess we are all Keynesians after all!
AHBritton 1 year ago
There is no such thing as full employment. What is full employment? When everybody has a job? Even when the economy is "good," much of the population doesn't work at all. Yes, somebody who believes that inflating the money supply boosts quality of life is a keynesian. I don't see how this is an ad hominem.
tkwelge 1 year ago
THe capital is already destroyed once it is diverted towards an industry that the economy would have otherwise shed. Those workers aren't available to feed the new up and coming industries. That investment money isn't free to invest in them. No, that money is needed for the welfare jobs of the last century. Milton Friedman was not for "inflation." He believed in a general increase in the money supply over time. He was for the abolishment of the federal reserve. I think you missed the point
tkwelge 1 year ago
You say anyone who thinks "inflating the money supply boosts quality of life is a keynesian" and that Milton Friedman "believed in a general increase in the money supply over time" in other words gradually inflating the money supply. Therefore he is a Keynesian. This isn't even my argument, many Austrian's use a version of this argument.
AHBritton 1 year ago
Speaking of New Zealand's policy of inflation targeting and it's beneficial effect on the nature of central banking, Milton said "It was the first time that anybody had explicitly adopted an inflation target. So that was something that everybody observed. And, secondly, it was so dramatically effective." I don't know why you are so determined to deny what Friedman obviously believed. His most famous work, Monetary History is ALL about inflation/deflation of the money supply and economic output.
AHBritton 1 year ago
@AHBritton there is a difference between philosophical concepts and pragmaticp prescriptions. I think that you aren't giving these people credit, when you oversimplify their position. Plus, we're getting a bit away from the point.
tkwelge 1 year ago
Huge difference sir. Huge difference.
tkwelge 1 year ago
Why don't you understand the relationship between money and resources? Printing money does not print resources. And yes, diverting resources from other countries is bad too. We are all one world economy and the money belongs where it will be most efficiently used to maximize the highest level of happiness.
tkwelge 1 year ago
Don't feel sorry for the Chinese government. Them and the US right wing have presided over the de industrialisation of America.
CmdrTobs 1 year ago
Are you fucking drunk?
tkwelge 1 year ago
Are you an actual idiot, a real fool? Or are you just trolling? Did having a sp ace bar character inserted in between a word foil your comprehension? Or are you being Purlie because you know nothing and I mean FUCKING NOTHING about economics?
CmdrTobs 1 year ago
@tkwelge Again, I never said printing money MADE resources. So I don't think I need to defend that. If you believe the Friedman monetarists, avoiding deflation and keeping the stock of money up is necessary for a well functioning economy. If you're an Austrian well you might believe a variety of things. He was against the central bank, but if having a central bank was unavoidable he offered a series of remedies, such as stabilizing the prize of raw materials, etc.
AHBritton 1 year ago
Was not necessarily concerned with deflation. I think we would all agree to try and maximize happiness, and I don't think I know the answer how to do that, and I'm skeptical of people who claim to have the "answer." Whether those "answers" come from Keynesians, monetarists, Austrians, Rothbard, Krugman, Sowell, Obama, etc. What I'm mostly strongly against are sloppy arguments such as HTWW is fond of making.
AHBritton 1 year ago
And what about your lame arguments? What about your non arguments? You don't want answers. You've already decided that "stimulus" and "jobs" are what you want. Regardless of whether or not anybody would actually be willing to pay for those services without the government subsidy. Their earning money, so they must be adding value! Even though we know for a fact that nobody would pay for these jobs unless they were forced to.
tkwelge 1 year ago
Apparently if I don't immediately fall in line w/ some idealistic belief that claims to have every answer I'm "already decided" & somehow extra biased. You look at everything & assume that your world view has it explained. I realize that I don't know much and so I question a lot of things, I play devil's advocate a lot most of the time people just call me a stupid Obama loving liberal, even though I voted for the libertarian candidate Bob Barr in the last election... I just LOOOOVEEEE stimulus
AHBritton 1 year ago
that's why I support politicians against it. I just looooove Obama, even though I didn't vote for him. I happen to request that people justify their beliefs whether or not I agree with them. I vote libertarian because I tend to think they're right. Not because I'm positive they are right... I happen to try and use my brain to attack peoples arguments because most people just get defensive and don't seem to know what they are talking about
AHBritton 1 year ago
100% true. Its 'my daddy syndrome'. Most of the toons here would thumb me up if I said some of the nonsense I have heard like:
"Obama is spending every month, what republicans spent per year"
"Obama is Communist, and he has brought these Tsars into government, this is outrageous!"
"Obama is coming to remove our guns"
"Obama want the 'terrorists' to win"
Then if you say otherwise there explanation is "you think he is the messiah" Something I have only heard them say. So puzzling.
CmdrTobs 1 year ago
You only need to look at your comments to know what you're about. You have posted here more than anybody else, and you haven't convinced a single person of dick or answered any real hard questions.
tkwelge 1 year ago
You stated that "stimulus" money (ie money that had to be borrowed from a bank, which does increase the money supply through the creation of credit) could be used to create a job and then that job would be a "benefit" to society simply because money was moving through hands. That's pretty close to stating that printing money creates resources. You act as if pumping up economic numbers is inherently a good thing. And Friedman was against both inflation and deflation in the long run.
tkwelge 1 year ago
Friedman wasn't against inflation. He was against high inflation and was much more against deflation.
AHBritton 1 year ago
Friedman believed that increasing the money stock (pumping up the numbers as you call it) was beneficial in a recession. He believed that major recessions and depressions could basically be fixed by monetary policy, the printing of money. He was against stimulus because he thought it was unnecessary. Any benefit it created was due to it's calling on the Fed to print money for it. In other words, fiscal policy might inadvertently help by effecting monetary policy... but was unnecessary.
AHBritton 1 year ago
I'm all for keeping interest rates lower during recessions (or letting a natural process set the interest rate), but deficit spending and other "emergency measures" are something entirely different. Ideally, the government wouldn't even set the interest rate.
tkwelge 1 year ago
There are better ways to keep the money supply stable. Our current system is too political, and the federal reserve has to accept some blame for lowering interests rates while ignoring asset class inflation. It would be better if we did not have to rely on an inherently political institution to toy with our money supply.
tkwelge 1 year ago
The current system is ment to be technocratic & non-political. Milton favored having a computer program control the stock of money. Although this has problems because it seems inflexible and it would be hard to agree on the "right" algorithm on which to run it. The best option I've heard so far for creating some sort of non-fiat system is by loosening asset taxes & restrictions, such as taxes on precious metals, allowing people to easily store value by other methods.
AHBritton 1 year ago
There are a couple of issues w/ this about which I am skeptical. First (maybe even you would agree w/ this) it requires that the gov't has the will & ability to pull it off smoothly. There are many ways this could be screwed up. If it is widely known that these measures are an explicit, or implicit, weakening of American support for the dollar, it could theoretically collapse the dollar. This would be catastrophic as the majority of Americans...
AHBritton 1 year ago
already storing their value in US currency, scramble to unload Fed notes this would possibly be the worst economic catastrophe in US history. Although it's possible that pressure over time could slowly and stealthily move us towards a more free-banking system without this catastrophe. I'm not sure which I think is more likely. As I said, it requires the gov't to pull it off just right and seems like a fragile process fragility not being something the gov't is known for handling well.
AHBritton 1 year ago
or we could implement The Fair Tax.
walthomas 1 year ago
Fair tax is a different concern. I'm talking more about the banking/fiat monetary system. The concern over the nature of the Federal Reserve and fiat monetary system is completely aside from the problems of taxation and doesn't really deal with peoples problems with fractional reserve banking.
AHBritton 1 year ago
It doesn't seem that impossible to me at all. You would probably have to set the standard at a rate that would keep the new gold based dollars equal to the value of the old dollars. Over time, the price would change. Countries have gone off and on the gold standard before. Japan comes to mind. Even during the gold standard days, economies often let the dollar float away from gold values. It's not unheard of. I'm not even suggesting we use a gold standard either.
tkwelge 1 year ago
You could also let banks set the interest rates themselves too.
tkwelge 1 year ago
Again, Friedman believed that in a recession money needed to be printed to offset the contraction of credit. He believed printing money didn't "create" resources, but helped keep production and investment going during a recession.
AHBritton 1 year ago
Even if it wasn't a fiat currency, interest rates would naturally decline during a recession. He suggested that the federal reserve keep interest rates low in the event of a recession to copy what would naturally happen in the absence of a federal reserve. He was simply saying that federal reserves should mimic natural systems. You kind of misunderstood that.
tkwelge 1 year ago
The only reason that friedman ever supported the idea that central banks should lower interest rates during recessions was that they needx to replicate what would occur under an uncontrolled market. He was not advocating government action but replication of what would occur in the absence of government action.
tkwelge 1 year ago
@tkwelge Where has Milton Friedman EVER said this was the reason for keeping the money supply from contracting? If you can find an example I would be extremely interested.
The monetarist prescription regarding Federal Reserve policy was not based on some abstract conception, or even historical analysis, of the mechanisms that free-banking systems had developed.
AHBritton 1 year ago
It was based on Anna Schwartz and his empirical and historical research in "A Monetary History of the United States" relating to the growth and contraction of the high-powered money stock.
If you want a good mid career analysis of what Friedman and Schwartz thought about the debate related to Central Banking vs. Free-Banking you should read "Has Government Any Role in Money?"
AHBritton 1 year ago
During quite a few years prior to his death Friedman would often say that the system he would prefer is a computer program that automatically grows the money stock at a specific rate, hardly some laissez-faire natural state of banking.
It seems to me the free-market reacts in direct opposition to Friedman's Central Bank recommendations. I am interest why you think in an economic downturn that private banks would decide to LOWER the interest they lend at rather than increase it.
AHBritton 1 year ago
Despite people's demand for paper money, what incentive does the bank have to increase its leveraging and diminish the reserves/deposit ratio instead of limit its loans and shore up its deposits?
AHBritton 1 year ago
@AHBritton Because borrowing naturally slows in the event of a recession.
tkwelge 1 year ago
@tkwelge If borrowing naturally slows, interest rates naturally drop, why does the Fed have to perform open market operations to lower it? Why does the stock of money and credit collapse? Why do banks suddenly experience liquidity crises? Why did the overnight lending market cease up? If people have all this extra cash to lend, why did lending standards INCREASE? Why did credit card rates and standards INCREASE?
AHBritton 1 year ago
If financial institutions have so much money to lend and no borrows the market should be swimming in liquidity, begging people to borrow. Where did the money go?
Why does Friedman think the Fed should do ANYTHING if this is naturally regulating? If we had a free-banking system, most likely based on commodities and not fiduciary, it is not like banks could just print more gold.
AHBritton 1 year ago
Do they just start printing more inside-money & flood the market? What would be in it for the banks to leverage themselves like this? This is what the Fed does, provide liquidity to the market & act as lender of last resort. Those are the main reasons why Friedman was skeptical about doing away with the Fed. He didn't believe that he'd seen it satisfactorily demonstrated that markets would develop this on their own, at least fast enough to prevent a lot of pain & demand for political action
AHBritton 1 year ago
In the absence of a fed, after a while, hte banks that hadn't leverraged themselves as bad would be in a position to lend money at lower rates and absorb the failed banks. New banks would also get in on the act too. In our current system, everyone waits for cues from the fed. The sysem would function in completely different ways without the tfed, and I think that we should seriously consider alternatives.Plus, you ignore that banks would not have leveraged themselves as much without the fed.
tkwelge 1 year ago
@tkwelge I know that those are arguments people make, and ones that Friedman and Schwartz acknowledge in "Has Government Any Role in Money?" they say that they are still interesting question for study in 1986 and that possibly the existence of certain types of real money and inflation adjusted contracts that have been recognized as deposits by certain institutions might provide interesting test cases.
AHBritton 1 year ago
At the time of its writing they were neither too impressed by historical cases of supposed "free banking" or convinced of its applicability to our current financial framework. Until his death he was not too convinced by these arguments despite his sympathy for their ideological underpinnings.
I tend to agree.
AHBritton 1 year ago
@AHBritton I don't really consider myself a true friedmanite for exactly that reason. You seem to be awfully focused on what milton friedman said, although I believed that he was often absorbed into pragmatic converstions that were outside of the philosophy that he often ignored. I agree. My biggest point is that there is no evidence that central banking really helps anyone besides rich bankers who are borrowing at near 0% and lending at as much 9%. What good does that do the common man?
tkwelge 1 year ago
@AHBritton This point you make disproves the entire idea tha tthe fed can lower the real interest rate for borrowers. The fed succeeded in lowering the rate that banks and big corporations can borrow their money at, but the real interest rate for regular civilian borrowers still went up. The federal reserve is impotent to help out real people and can only bail out institutions. In answer to your questions, I would point out that it is a process and not soething that occurs overnight.
tkwelge 1 year ago
@tkwelge The point is the market COMPLETELY seized up. I don't know if you remember but in the early days of the recession the overnight lending market STOPPED! What normally traded tens and undress of billions of dollars daily STOPPED! That is the reason for the lender of last resort. It doesn't only help banks, businesses and corporations were unable to make payroll. Anyone who did not have almost entirely liquid assets was screwed.
AHBritton 1 year ago
These same types of things happened during another time period know as the Great Depression. In this instance they decided that he Fed should not print money or act as lender of last resort for banks. They ALLOWED the money supply to contract in favor of trying to stop the flight of gold. How did that work out? Do you completely deny the research in a Monetary History of the United States 1867-1960?
AHBritton 1 year ago
@AHBritton Yes, existing on the gold standard and then initiating the policy of godl hoarding was a bad idea. I'm not arguing agasint taht fact. Don't pretend that arguing against the gold standard and simultaneous gold hoarding is the same thing as a "natural" banking system.
tkwelge 1 year ago
@AHBritton Yes, you are correct. However, I'm talking about the long term, not just the immediate circumstances. I think that more businesses should have gone under. Plus you continue to ignore the fact that the banks wouldn't have become that leveraged in the absence of the government incentives.
tkwelge 1 year ago
@AHBritton It's pretty much common sense that a bank would lower the interest rate as the rate of borrowing fell and as a consequence saving grew. The natural interest rate would fall.
tkwelge 1 year ago
Want Accurate numbers ?
Force the government to tabulate numbers for actual unemployed.
The Unemployed should be able to register weekly by phone or by internet.
just because an unemployed party is "off the unemployment books" does not mean they have found gainful employment, as the gov. would have us believe !
mstaff657 2 years ago
You seriously expect every unemployed person, even those not looking for a job, to register weekly at a website or call the government by phone. And you expect the government to spend money maintaining a website and phone verification system and to spend money prodding people to use them? What? Do you know how they currently tabulate unemployment numbers? Even if you did implement this system it would be a horrible statistical model.
AHBritton 2 years ago
If you are just worried about having them count discouraged workers in their models that's a much easier fix.
AHBritton 2 years ago
My method of being accounted for (unemployed) is to spam all political ads on Y/T that seem to be from yet more career politicians. Crude.....yes. Effective? eh, keeps my mind off the bills not getting paid.
Until the banks start lending money, there's 10's of 1000's of us construction workers NOT working. At a guess, only 1/3 to 1/4 of us are drawing unemployment, the rest of us are competing with "immigrants" for $8 dollars an hour.
TheLeftofright 1 year ago
I wonder how hungry citizens will have to get before they start forming bands and just go house to house and business to business "ending" every illegal they find?
araeshkigal 1 year ago
bring a brit, i know oh to well about how projected numbers can heavily be underestimated, just because the government says "with/without it the max will be ...%" doesnt mean thats right, thats a guess basically.
For example, "immigration to ... will be 200,000 in 5 years" but it could actually be 1million in 5 years. Just because the projected numbers are off, you cant say it didnt work, for all we know, it could be even higher without the support.
MitchofSmeg 2 years ago
the 'government' is a puppet stage show, the banks are pulling the strings.
imtangent 2 years ago
this dude sucks. it wasn't a demon sheep. it was a wolf in disguise. and omg that was the worse logic ever with what he didwith the chart. "with out the simulis we did worse. blah blah blah" dude STFU. please just caue it's higher than what was predicted doesn't mean it didn't work. it means that it was worse than we thought. i honesly just want to punch him in the balls. Gb is not a scam, ur just an idiot.
grnbbllntrck 2 years ago
This is what you get when you have some one buying the office of the president of the United States of America.
Between 600 and 700 million dollars bought the office.
This manchild is a disgrace.his lies are monumental.
He would have fit in well with soviet leaders.
OOPS4U2CNOW 2 years ago
ever heard of a razor faggot?
pavlopwnsyourface 2 years ago
Maybe you should challenge Tom Campbell on gay marriage and abortion because he leaves those totally off his own site. So he himself is a liar too..
GodGunsAndGlory 2 years ago
Lee,
I'm not sure if others have mentioned this in the comments (I'm sure many must have), but I just wanted to point out a small logic fallacy in your initial argument about jobs lost using the graph. Also keep in mind that I vehemently hate the Obama administratino ;)
While the actual unemployment rate did increase beyond what was predicted it would be WITH the stimulus plan, it was also higher than was predicted without. Essentially this just means all estimates were off... (continued)
Starwars4J 2 years ago
so we can't say with certainty that the stimulus made us lose more jobs, hell without the stimulus the spike may have been even higher. However on a personal note I do believe the "stimulus" to be one of the greatest financial fiascos our nation has ever seen, and that it has in all likelihood cost a great deal of jobs. However, just as we cannot predict the number of jobs saved, in this instance this graph can not tell us the number of jobs lost.
Starwars4J 2 years ago
If Obama predicts employment will be 8% with the stimulus and 9% without and it ends up going to 9% with the stimulus is it unreasonable to think that we still wouldn't necessarily have been better off without the stimulus and that unemployment would still at least be equal too or greater than what it is now without the stimulus? In other words why are we assuming the stimulus plan cost us jobs?
Padraic54 2 years ago
Although your argument is very flawed, there is an underlying point. Conservatives say that Obama's plans will destroy U.S. jobs because it will raise taxes and cause inflation. Neither of which have happened yet (unless you think the job ills are caused by the tobacco tax). Because I feel I must always say this when commenting here I AM NOT A LIBERAL!
AHBritton 2 years ago
@AHBritton. We will probably see more inflation once the economy resettles, and any rebound will now be tempered by inflation, and the fact that we have to make payments to the debt. Also, most of these jobs being "created or saved" aren't jobs demanded by people in the marketplace by people trying to fulfill their own interests, but fake, arbitrary jobs created with subsidy from people who have no choice but to pay it. A job isn't a job. Especially not a government subsidized job.
tkwelge 2 years ago
I partly agree with what you are saying. My point was that arguably none of these job destroying processes were really happening yet. So far no major tax hikes or inflation, and I don't really buy the diversion of jobs argument. With unemployment as high as it is businesses are having no trouble finding qualified employees if they want them. And government jobs are jobs... silly o claim they are not. You may think they are inefficient, unnecessary, redundant, ect. But that is not the definition
AHBritton 2 years ago
@AHBritton Silly to claim that they aren't real jobs eh? So if the government pays somebody to produce something nobody wants, taking resources away from the things that people actually do want, while printing more money to do all of this, you're telling me that there won't be less actual relevant output? This is similar to the claim that "WW2 got us out of the depression." Humans can't live in cars and eat bullets. On paper it looked great, but to the average american rationing goods......
tkwelge 1 year ago
"So if the government pays somebody to produce something nobody wants" Another assumption. There is plenty of things that need doing in America atm. Increasing the % of renewable energy production is one, and its a great time to do it to as prices for all materials are low.
CmdrTobs 1 year ago
How is spending more money on the same thing (energy production) an immediate need of the US? We could have spent more of the stimulus money on real infrastructure projects, but even then, without a cost benefit analysis (and probably even with a cost benefit analysis), it's all speculative. Remember, the government is spending money that they acquired through theft, so most of it goes towards buyinng more votes, pleasing special interests, and expanding the overall reach and influence of govt
tkwelge 1 year ago
Energy production is bricks and mortar stuff. its everything. The industrial economy is so good because of the high energy input. Everyone puts in a small amount of labour and gets everything they need and more in return thanks to industrial energy. Energy demand has only one way to go and that's up.
US electricity is tight against the limits. Its not diverse too, given the depressed commodity prices its an excellent time to change that.
Btw, stop saying tax is theft, its not 1750.
CmdrTobs 1 year ago
There are plenty of things that occur within the sphere of human events that have nothing do with energy. Energy is just another good. Saying that "energy is the cornerstone of our economy" is essentially nonsense. This is just sector fetishism. There is no "cornerstone" of the economy. All parts are equally relevant or exchangeable.
tkwelge 1 year ago
Are you out of your mind?
Energy from chemicals IS the very essence of industrialisation. Energy tracks GDP point by point. If you cannot see that energy is the SOLE TOTAL AND COMPLETE cause of why we can get 10 loaves of bread for an hour at minimum wage in 2010, as opposed to 5 loaves of bread for a weeks wage 200yrs ago then go back and learn economics 101. I am actually staggered you just said what you said.
I just cannot believe it. I actually cannot believe you just wrote that.
CmdrTobs 1 year ago
@CmdrTobs You should read "A farewell to alms" in which the author goes into great detail to show that the industrial revolution had more to do with culture than technology or resources, which had existed more or less all alnog even through the ancient period. It's the way those resources are utilized that counts, not how many resources you have. Countries with lots of natural resources are often dirt poor. Most countries in Africa have more resources at their siposal than japan.
tkwelge 1 year ago
@tkwelge You should read Guns Germs &steel or even a few George sowell books on development. Much more substantive and evidence based than a piece of Ernst Hemingway?? fiction. (I have the book with a Oliver twist keep sake box gathering dust.)
Btw your prof in comparing a resource rich African country to Japan is crazy. Having loads of gold/diamonds and selenium etc... is useless compared to having a temperate climate that can grow cereal crops.
CmdrTobs 1 year ago
@CmdrTobsI've read Guns Germs and steel as well as collapse, and i have great respect for Jared Diamond, and A farewell to alms was written as a counter to GG&Susing the same meticulous approach that diamond uses to make his arguments.You're thinking of "A Farewell to Arms" which is a different book.
Also you're point about cereal crops would only apply if we were talking about ancient cultures,and if you're going to use diamond, you'd have to point out that africa has a bigger east/west axis.
tkwelge 1 year ago
Comment removed
tkwelge 1 year ago
@tkwelge Japan wasn't exposed to proper farming technique until china dn korea made contact around 500 bc. This is thousands of years after true civilization had arisen in north africa. Of course, I was speaking about modern ivilization so any discussion of ancients should be left to another discussion.
tkwelge 1 year ago
@tkwelge Ah ok.
Serial crops are still of vital importance today. Its the chief reason for much of the famines. In fact unstable Monsoon climates and lack of cereal crops are the number 1# reason for famines in many climates.
Not to mention lack of all farm animals (as we know them) in Africa.
CmdrTobs 1 year ago
@CmdrTobs Nowadays, you can import most anything that you need. Hensce the japanese response of importing everything that it can't get from itself, like oil, and exporting what it can. Even countries with trade deficits tend tro do well enought to turn into modern economies. In the new globablized world, if you can convince anybody that anything you do is worthwhile, you can get anything that you can't supply for yourself. Products chase demand, and supply creates its own demand somewhere.
tkwelge 1 year ago
Energy production is only "brick and mortar" if you rely on particularly large energy consumption to fuel your quality of life. A lot of people do, but people tend towards efficiency in their lives, and most people have a limit to their potential energy consumption. It's just one part of the overall scheme.
tkwelge 1 year ago
You make puerile comments about me accidentally hitting the space key, yet you leave this gibberish for me to see.
"[only] if you rely on particularly large energy consumption to fuel your quality of life" - You stupid monkey. Your quality of life is at total parity with your energy use. Given that your probably western, its through the fucking roof.
"but people tend towards efficiency in their lives" WTF?
As opposed to not 'tending towards efficiency outside your life'. Moron.
CmdrTobs 1 year ago
You are a fucking retard, so don't start insulting me. My quality of life isn't directly related to energy. Want an example? The US has a far more energy intensive lifestyle than people in many other counttries. Would you argue that we inherently have a higher quality of life? The only thing more energy does is allow you to inrease your excess. With cheap oil, you can live forty miles away from work where the land is cheap. When oil is more scarce, you just live closer to work.