@nykos222 Not as a result of Keynesian economics my friend.
Britain fell because she exhausted herself in the struggle for liberty. The essential rule of history is that the mighty superpowers ALL fall, without exception.
@LucisFerre1 While Rome did have a Welfare State, though not exactly as we in the modern world understand it, the structure was geared towards producing healthy soldiers for the Roman Legions.
It wouldn't be true to suggest that the funding of their welfare system was in any way a direct cause of Rome's downfall.
It seems to me that the point is the burden put on the private economy by an overextended State - bet it one with Welfare or Warfare as its raison detre.
@BasilFawlty4444 True, but there IS however something wrong with spending more than you have for an extended period of time. It just so happens that the two tend to USUALLY go together, so it's usually a pretty safe bet that when you have one, you will have the other shortly, if not already.
Granted, taxes will probably higher. In the UK, for the average earner income taxation is not that different from the US, but for those who earn over £150,000, it will be a lot higher.
But everybody gets free healthcare, state pension, reduced tuition fees (in Scotland and Wales NO tuition fees) and more. You'd have to pay for these things anyway; so you get back what you pay in.
Few people here would ever want do away with the Welfare State. We love it.
@BasilFawlty4444 This still steals money from people. Universal health care run by bureaucratic government officials lowers its quality. The government and law's only purpose is to protect individual liberty, not take away from liberty and property rights with misconceived philanthropy.
@JayMM117 So why did the Commonwealth Fund 'Mirror Mirror' report 2010 rank the UK health service #1 in the world for effective care (US #4) and the Netherlands #1 overall (UK #2, US #7).
You're confusing absolute philosophy with your own political orientation; even Locke agreed that taxes could be levied for services with the consent of a majority.
Americans pay taxes too, not that much less either, but are still crippled by healthcare debts and university fees.
@moestietabarnak simple principles and freedom rather than an over complication of price fixing. The more you advocate complicating economics the greater potential for abuse there is. More regulation and reform only serve to create more abuse
@moestietabarnak will only expand its powers not in the benefit for the many but only the few. Keynesian economics operates under the assumption that the market is volatile its not it is Organic. Self interest with minimal government intervention best bolsters the market. A government that is limited to honoring contracts and the protection of property rights best serves the economy. Free markets may not be the perfect system but it is better than the alternative. Its a system that relies on
@moestietabarnak yes your right Tarp is not Keynesian its is the abuse of Keynesian philosophy and theories. That is exactly why reform and regulation do not help or improve the situation they just produce unintended consequences. Its like the ideal of communism, what is meant as a movement to create equality with central planning has only lead to systimatic corruption. Government enforcement is a monopoly on markets. You can tout all the reform you want but central government
@moestietabarnak The very bailouts Keynesian Economics suggests markets need in time of recession are not used or appropriated properly. I can agree that proper investments help an economy but your asking a system bought out by special interests to determine were those investments go. This is why after 800 billion dollars recovery is close to stagnant. Government does not know best on whom to invest since it only listens to those with deep wallets. A bailout only encourages bad investment
@iggsta3o5 also, the government can borrow at way lower rate than private citizen, thus a project earning 5% wouldnt be profitable for a private citizen to borrow at 8% for it, but profitable for the government who can borrow at 4% (with other saving)
@moestietabarnak Problem is is that that money is usually taken from the citizen with a tax. This discourages consumption, besides the point consumption only helps the economy when the market demands it. At times of economic strife savings are what help a market. If you try to price fix by lowering interest rate and pump false money into the market you get distorted prices. This leads to false signals telling business to invest when the market is not ready for it and in return the only real
The error above is there is no real borrowing - the federal government is the sole currency issuer and is not revenue constrained.
Fiscal spending creates money. Bond issue is a budget construct to tie books. It funds nothing and is simply an asset swap - bonds for money, both federal obligations, with no real assets/investment involved.
Fiscal spending increases aggregate demand. Economic response will be: If slack in productive capacity - growth. If at full capacity - inflation risk.
@americanIDOLfan11111 correction, corruption (and republican that doesn't believe in government, thus break it to prove their point) break everything they touch
So misleading, you don't use your retirement for a trip to Vegas, you use your retirement to buy new tools and train skill..
in case of govnt, it's not paying people to dig a hole and to refill it, it's HIRING people to do useful thing like infrastructure etc, which 1- increase the overall productivity 2- keep your population trainned and employable, 3- decrease the unemployment (which is a cost too) and 4-jumpstart the consummation to break the spiral (less demand, more layoff ).
@moestietabarnak but it also come with a caveat, you must save/ cut the debt when thing are going well, which many don't (like the republican who prefer to cut taxes instead of the deficit, leaving no `marge de manoeuvre` later
yeah pretty lady, but one of the key idea of keynesianism is the multiplicator effect. And not just the shift inside the GDP as u mention. The only problem with economics is, when some pics on top cannot earn enough and put the people pursuits on gamble. For example all the bush advisers and now obamas advisers are those pics i mention. just LOOK for the Documentation: "INSIDE JOB !" !!!!!!
Americans are gonna have to live below their means for awhile if we wanna make this country great again. You'll have to rent and not buy, get rid of the pool, get rid of the extra cars and stop taking vacations. We're going to have to earn our way up, just like in the old days, when this country was on the rise and the American dream was flourishing.
The sooner we do it, the faster it'll go by, and the less painful it'll be.
@svvmichael1 In fact, Marx is excellent reading. Apparently nobody told you, nor did you bother to learn, that McCarthyism is now spoken of with contempt. Marx's insight into class struggle throughout history; the barbarous exploitation of workers by a ruthless ruling class (a state you and your cronies apparently admire) finds a parallel underlined by OWS today.
Krugman won the Nobel Prize in Economics in 2008. Friedman in 1976. Like Friedman your views are outdated and second hand.
@BillSalem WRONG. Marx has been discredited completely since EVERY TIME a country has gone his route they have failed miserably, killed millions of innocent people, and taken all liberty away. NO ONE except left-wing zealots think Krugman is anything other than a fool. His ideas are rehash of tired Marxist/ Keynesian fluff that have FAILED EVERY TIME. Friedman, however, has been proven correct EVERY TIME. You are WRONG EVERY TIME and 5 different posters have exposed your ignorance.
@svvmichael1 You become tiresome. I am aware Communism has historically failed. What I said is that Marx is a good read. Even someone as dull witted as you might benefit from a quick read. You might also want to rethink your need to gloss over the criminality inherent in Friedman's theories. Further, most people agree: on paper, Communism is a good idea. Somebody ought to try it sometime. The problem is not Marx but human nature. Oh, and as for your need to discredit Krugman --- pathetic.
@BillSalem Krugman is universally regarded as a fraud. Watch George Will destroy him you idiot. Krugman now refuses to appear on shows with Will because he gets crushed in any debate. Communism is a terrible idea, hence the fact it always fails. Friedman's ideas are far from criminal as they lift people from poverty into middle-class and wealthy strata. You are an old fool with tired, failed ideas. You are too stupid to learn. Bye now fool.
@svvmichael1 Your continued ad hominem attacks serve only to identify you as the typically unbalanced partisan right wing wacko authoritarian submissive. Nothing more. George Will's style is that of a prissy, cerebral ball-less wonder whose faulty logic has led him to a barren, useless position as a bootlicking sycophant of Corporate Republicanism. I watched Will squirm in abject defeat when he was thoroughly trounced by Barney Frank. Barney is so much smarter than the pretentious Will! LOL
@BillSalem Ummm, Barney got so crushed by Will he told the producers he would never appear on the program again if Will was present. Barney Frank is a main reason for the 2008 financial collapse. And ad hominem is not a negative thing, your ignorance is relevant in this debate, as you 1) attack me and 2) show a total lack of intelligence and knowledge. You have yet to post even 1 truthful, relevant fact to back up any of your flawed arguments. You are a leftist, jealous, hating...
@marketanarchist2011 All those countries rise were due to high savings/ investment, meaning that the government actually hold a lot of capital.(i.e big gov.) Btw China does not practice Laissez-faire they are still TVE that make up a huge part of their economy. US rose due to WWII.
2. Consumption is everything if the companies producing the products are in your country.
3. Bush tax cuts
4. Obviously not. But if I knew I had a safety net to fall back on, I would be more incline to take risks.
Called an institute cuz INSTITUTE is a serious word and that'll make it look more serious. And not so much like the flim flammery it actually is--- of a buncha asshole Republicans trying desperately to find a legitimate moral and ethical compass for their criminal economic belief systems. Truth is, they are just a bunch of authoritarians who were abused as children and never did resolve those conflicts where they wanted to kill their dads. Result: Conservative Republicans. Grow up, jerks!
@BillSalem How is less government authoritarian? Authoritarianism is what were moving toward today. Government bails out and subsidizes large corporations, over regulates and overtaxes small business, infringes on our civil liberties left and right, sends us to war very recklessly, and lets the Federal Reserve constantly print trillions of $ to lend to corporations and fund wars causing everyones money to be devalued. Republicans and Democrats are both authoritarian.
@415Dub Authoritarian submissives elected Bush2, not once but twice. He's a dominant authoritarian & initiated Illegitimate war and torture. He likes his boots licked. History will show him guilty of War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity. Government is still made up of humans, each with his own style. Answerable to his own masters, the Shadow Government. i.e. The Council on Foreign Relations calls the shots, whether federal government is big or small. When CFR wants war there is war.
@BillSalem Nothing will ever get better in this nation until Americans get over their President fetish and start paying better attention to the 535 members of Congress and the Senate that actually *do* just about everything.
So 69 to 71 is not an increase ? Wow. Republicans can't do math. Is a 2% increase in government spending that much of a price to pay for higher consumption? And is it really that terrible that investment which is actually gambling and speculation on Wall st, dips slightly ? Poor Wall St billionaires, would be hurt miniscule by that. And I guess you think that workers are paid too much. Poor CEO's billionaires have to pay so much to their employees. You're just another mouth piece,
1) Tax cuts, less regulations, as well liberalization of markets don't always have positive trade-offs. 2) Cutting taxes you are doing just reducing the size of government putting it in consumption and investment not increasing GDP. 3) The las vegas allusion was a clearly hyperbolic, and borrowing money is actually good for the economy until it gets out of control. Ask Reagon. 4) Keynes safety net incentives risk taking which leads to more businesses being created.
@CrusaderDom3 Lol. Do my homework, I study economics what about you. As for your "past ten years" quip the problem was not keynes economic but rather bush tax cuts. Remember we did have a surplus before Bush took office. He idiotically cut taxes and while increasing government spending, that´s just bad math.
@defnite You obviously do not understand economics at all. Find a way to finish high school, then come talk to the adults. Keynes has been completely disproven over the last 60 years, while Friedmanism is the economic theory that clearly has worked/won in the marketplace. Bush and Obama are the same big spenders, so your attempt actually lost you credibility. Gov't spending hurts people and destroys economies. Go buy a book on economics.
@svvmichael1 It wouldn't be the first time the books were wrong. Friedman sucks! He's not just wrong, he's dead wrong. I agree with Friedman on one issue only and that is on legalizing drugs. If people get hooked on drugs, its no skin off my nose; let them die. Period. Friedman and Ayn Rand, along with Hayek, need to be erased from history. In the long term Friedman works only for the few. Even Adam Smith says that the free market only works if all citizens have equality.
@BillSalem And freedom and equality is what Friedman and Hayek are all about. You are a jealous, lazy fool so you support theft like Keynes. Every study since 1950 has proven Keynes wrong anf Friedman right. So, you lose.
@svvmichael1 "You are a jealous, lazy fool so you support theft like Keynes."
This is how attack poodles like you win an argument? Just re-act to those who actually can think. You know precious little about Friedman other than a few YouTube videos. Friedman was the criminal who told Nixon it'd be swell to have the CIA invade a sovereign nation, murder a democratically elected leader simply because he refused to play ball with Corporate America; and then to install a murderous puppet.
@svvmichael1 Since I study economics, weekly reader of the economist and financial times I am not sure what you are talking about. You only made a claim not an argument. Therefore I believe it is fair to assume you lack sufficient evidence to back your claim. I have shown my evidence, which essentially gave you to refute my claims and you can't even do that. It is clear that you lack the mental faculties for this debate so I won't respond again.
@defnite Since I have an MBA, own several businesses, am active in the Chamber of Commerce, and have studied economics in depth and earn more in a year than you'll make in 10 years, I conclude you are ignorant of all principles of economics. Friedman was a Keynesian in the 40's, he did a massive research study and found that Keynes was horribly wrong, and he created the most successful school of economic thought. Taxation shrinks economies ALWAYS, you need to go to a better school.
@defnite BTW I have a BAME from Geaorgia Tech and an MBA from Northwestern. You have made absolutely no sense on this page and have been destroyed by at least 6 different posters. You are a complete socialist, anti-american douchebag that needs to go to hell. It has been proven that tax dollars used for gov't spending (because of the inefficiencies of bureaucracy) return only .82 to .93 per tax 1.00. For every dollar NOT taxed it generates 1.03 to 1.12 in increased GDP. Bye now.
@svvmichael1 lol. Somebody got their panties in a bunch. I was "destroyed". By who? In what way? If lowering taxes why didn't the bush tax cuts create the jobs conservatives promised. Why did Reagonomics fail so bad that it lead to the biggest recession since the 1940's? No one is saying Keynesian economics was perfect, but is best option so far. Also america was not founded on low taxes as many ignorant people think. (look up Whiskey Rebellion)
@defnite So, as a Keynesian, you are all about lying? Reagan created the biggest peacetime expansion in the history of the world. Carter's Keynesianism left us with 13.5% unemployment, 11% inflation, and 18% interest rates. By 1986 unemployment was at 4.8%, inflation at 3%, and interest rates at 7%...the most successful economic program ever. The 90's were because of Reagan as well after the Repubs took congress. 1996 100% of Fortune 500 CEO said economy was because of Reagan not Bubba.
@svvmichael1 Ronald reagon released his tax cuts in 1981 and the unemployment in 1983 was 11.2%. Even though I agree Bill Clinton played a huge role in the financial crisis. The problem as expressed in the book "All the devils are here" started under Reagan. In fact I could make the argument that the cause of the crisis was due to the fact there were no regulations of the derivatives market as well as the fact that golden parachutes gave bankers an incentive to take risks.
@svvmichael1 Also you were right on the me being wrong, on the recession. I apologize for that. Ronald Reagan turned the US from creditor nation to a debt nation. We must also include the debt people in general took on during his administration which lead to income stagnation. Lets not forget the rising gap between the rich and the poor. Of course CEO would give reagan credit, he helped them even when it wasn't in the country's interest.
@defnite YOu must enjoy lying. 1) Unemployment in 1980 13.7%, in 1983 10.5% in 1986 4.9%. BOOOOOOOOOM Reagan wins 2) Reagan did not cause the debt, he forced congress to reduce taxes and then submitted 6 balanced budgets out of 8. Democrats who had huge majorities in the house, led by Tip O'Neill said those budgets were "Dead on arrival" because they did not care about the USA, just about buying votes. You see fool, the House originates all spending. Go read the constitution. Bye fool.
@svvmichael1 No actually I was right there was a decline from 13.7 and then there was a rise that peaked in low and behold 1983 at (drum rose please) 11.2%. There was a double dip recession under Reagon if you remember during his first term in office. Also Reagan raised taxes in 1982 and 1983. So lets turn that boom back into a fizzle. Why aren't you acknolwedging the growing the debt the country took on during reagan? Or the us changing from the largest creditor to the largest debtor?
@defnite It wasn't in the country's best interest for Reagan to reduce unemployment from 13.5% under Carter to 4.9% ???????????? You are a liberal socialist misanthrope. You don't even understand basic economics. You are laughable. You have proven to be completely ignorant of how tha constitution works, and don't even know what the CRA is that Carter and Clinton used to collapse the economy. You are too stupid to understand that Dodd-Frank is the worst law passed in decades as well.
@svvmichael1 I never said that reducing the unemployment rate was not in the country's interest. (straw man fallacy btw) The rising gap between the rich and the poor was not in the country's interest. Neither was the income stagnation that took place. I would also like to mention that in Obama term his rates 14% lower than Reagan Tax cuts in 1981. Dodd Frank has not been fully utilized and in fact been water down by lobbyists. Stop hiding behind insults and let your argument speak for itself.
@defnite You have been completely discredited as an unintelligent, ignorant misanthrope who hates the USA. Go elsewhere and start a new Soviet land fool.
@svvmichael1 Do you always insult people when you can't defend your viewpoints? You seem a bit childish. There are arguments on both sides of the table some valid and others invalid, you get no where by insulting people that disagree with you. You have as much ground calling me an "Anti- america" or socialist as I do calling you an "Anti-Christian" or "Anarchists". Convincing yourself that I am a socialist does not make you more right. Facts are facts whether you choose to accept or ignore them.
@defnite 1) Reagan contributed $0 to the national debt. His tax policies generated up to 7% growth in yearly GDP. He stated he wanted lower gov't spending and Tip O'Neill and the Democrats continued to use the Treasury as a pay-off system for votes. Reagan sent 6 of 8 BALANCED BUDGETS. So you have failed on everything on that era. Tip O'Neill and the Dems are responsible 100% for the Deficits of the 80's. Reagan gets 85% of the credit for the Great economy from '83 (it does take time...
@svvmichael Reagan is in office and the democrats rule congress, it is Congresses fault for the deficit but if Obama is in office and the republicans rule congress than it is Obama's fault. That is not sound logic. I didn't fail on this era, Reagan did cut taxes and borrowed the rest of the money. Reagan agreed to the extra spending. He turned US from biggest creditor nation to the biggest debtor nation virtually over night. Note your percentage of credit seem arbitrary to say the least.
@defnite ...for tax cuts to work) to 1999. 2) Clinton tried to destroy the economy from Jan93 to Jan95 by being a socialist. His deficits were actually nearly $500Billion in those years. Then Newt and the Republicans came to power, passed Welfare reform and other major cuts and created a SURPLUS which 90% of the credit goes to Newt and the Repubs. 3) 1979 Carter creates an abomination called CRA (which you still don't know what that is, I have mentioned it 6 times and you have yet to...
@svvmichael1 Yes Reagan was responsible for the dot com boom that took place under clinton. Who would of thought that cutting taxes in 1981 virtually would lead to invention of the internet (sarcasm btw). Wasn't it Clinton that also help deregulate wall street during the housing boom (that socialist pig. lol.) So none of that surplus was due to the added revenue from the tax increases. (Really?) Also wasn't it reagan that passed SMMEA that allowed people pension to be invested in MBS. How did...
@svvmichael1 ... that turn out again? Btw I like how you are trying so hard to distance reagan from the boom when in fact he was one of the main players involved. The CRA was not to blame. Due to the fact that to be considered low income you had to make less then the median income in your neighborhood. For example if I lived in Neighborhood in which the average income was 100,000, than if I make 95,000 a year I am considered low income.Quotas were easy to meet.Problems came from no oversight...
@defnite ...acknowledge) which forced lenders to make bad loans. Clinton expanded it in 1994 and 1997 with Cisneros and Rubin (who used it to reap huge personal profit at Citibank). They forced banks to make0%-5% down mtg programs for people with bad credit. This created a huge artificial demand for housing which drove prices skyhigh until the bubble burst. Democrats protected their donors at Fannie/Freddie (like Franklin Raines, Obama's economic advisor who raped taxpayers for ...
@defnite ...$100million in personal profit by lying, cheating and stealing) until that bubble burst. The responsibilty for the 2008 collapse Democrats 85%, Republicans 15%. There is a youtube video of Bill Clinton admitting as much. There is a video on youtube of Franklin Raines lying to congress as well. EPIC FAIL for you. 3) The Constitution prohibits the national gov't from getting involved in the economy and especially picking winners and losers. The Democrats from 1933 to Now...
@defnite ... have controlled congress for 80% of that time. During those years they created an incomprehensible tax code to help the ultra-rich (who are vastly democrat) and the lazy poor to buy their votes. The Dems target the middle-class for destruction. All liberal/socialist societies delvole into a 2 class society. Look at the voting for the lazy poor (not the hard-workers but the lazy) and they are 90% Democrat. People earning over $1 million are 65% Democrat. The middle is 68%...
@defnite ...Republican, and since this country was started for the benefit and freedom of the small business entreprenuer and not the lazy or the elite/royalty they are the true conscience of the USA. Therefore, you are a socialist buffoon who lies and/or is completely ignorant of economics and history. 4) Dodd-Frank has not been watered down, it is an ignorant law that will cripple our country. It will make it so only 3-5 banks can originate mortgages...talk about "Too big to Fail"...
@svvmichael1 ... the derivative markets. Which republican were staunchly against. Please do not claim the republicans are the party of the middle class. You know and I know you that is BS. The republicans were willing to raise taxes on everyone if the rich were not allowed to keep there tax cuts last year. The republicans are the strongest advocates of citizen united act and is the republicans who have always been the party of the elite/ royalty just look at Mitt Romney and Jon Huntsman. That...
@defnite 5) The problems with the USA do have origins on both sides. Big labor and socialist liberal confiscatory tax policies on individuals and corporations and ridiculous regulations FORCE companies to fire people here and go overseas. completely Free Trade allows country with better/lower regulations and low taxes and labor costs to gobble up those jobs and sell back to us created large trade deficits. We need to get out of the WTO and NAFTA, negotiate FAIR trade agreements...
@svvmichael1 ... is why average Americans can't relate to them. To say that the US has not gained/ "stolen" (I use this term lightly) jobs from other countries due to NAFTA is just not accurate. NAFTA was the reason for the Zapatilla Revolt in mexico. You of all people should support free trade because it allows people to buy products for cheap. We helped start WTO and hold the most influence why would we leave it? I am supposed to be the socialist, why are you arguing against laissez faire?
@defnite ...disband the NLRB, reduce/eliminate the power of Unions, drop corporate rate to 10%, eliminate 80-90% of all regulations, create a simple 2 page tax code based on the Fair Tax with a small income tax component for incomes over $500k (indexed). Then eliminate teahcers unions, eliminate 75% of school districts "administrative" jobs which are just crony socialist jobs, and use that savings to pay HIGHLY QUALIFIED teachers $80-100k/yr attracting top talent. This plan...
@svvmichael1 You of all should know that is more beneficial for the US to focus on highly skilled labor like building cars, developing patents, developing weapons etc. to sell to other countries because we have the competitive advantage.Getting rid of 80-90% of regulation is a joke, but I agree we should bust the teachers union to atleast make it easier to fire them. All unions are not bad, depends on what they are demanding. ( I am so-so on this claim). Getting loopholes is a good idea for tax.
@defnite ...would drop unemployment to 3-4% w/in 4 years, GDP and GDI would grow at 6-8% annually. 6) Gov't spending must be pegged at no more than 14% of GDP at the national level. Any more is wasteful as gov't has never created a job or performed a service as well as the private sector. You lose Keynesian socialist. I win. Go back to school.
@svvmichael1 Your plan seems bold to say the least. Government spending should reflect the point and time. If we are in decline the Government should spend in order to stimulate the economy. Investing in new innovative projects, education, infrastructure, etc. I never agreed with the notion that gov't should compete with the private sector, I believe the government should oversee businesses. To keep businesses in check if the government doesn't do it than no one will.
@defnite It is good to see that 10% of your thoughts are correct. But on Reagan you are simply wrong on every front. First you need to read the constitution, then learn US history to understand the relationship of the House/Senate/President. Different eras even change that dynamic. In the 80's Reagan successfully pressured the heavily democrat congress to cut taxes, improve the military, and reduce some regulations which allowed us to create 20+ million jobs in 7 years, and 55+million..
@defnite ...jobs over 18 years. Nearly all economists give Reagan credit for this. BTW, the Clinton tax increases actually reduced revenues, as is nearly always the case. Taxes cause people to change behavior, which is why this tax code (88% of which was written by democrats) is so bad. It punishes success, it punishes savings, it drives people to consume blindly even into large debt. It also makes businesses move jobs overseas. The Repubs in congress in the 90's created the balanced...
@defnite ...Clinton was smart enough to go along for the ride. GWB was not a conservative. His tax cuts did increase revenues (as nearly always happens) and creadted 6 million jobs from '01-'07. Repubs in congress were very upset at his increases in spending (a very un-conservative thing), but didn't stop him, so they get blame as well. Obama had a massive dem majority and did his best to destroy the USA, and it may still happen. Obamacare (said by his own GAO) will cost the U.S...
@defnite ...10 million jobs over the next 10 years. He forced American Airlines to send $2billion in business to AIRBUS (a french company) away from Boeing ( a truly american company), in order to keep paying off big labor. He also cost South Carolina 9,000 for this political reason (since he knows he won't win SC). IBM is building a new facility in India because the Federal Gov't made them. Cost the US 30,000 jobs there. Gov't involved in industry is always bad.
@defnite as far as trade, I am all for FAIR trade, not FREE trade. I want to have a country with a strong manufacturing base for all those (hopefully former union) workers. Yes we have had benefits from WTO and NAFTA, but we have a net loss in jobs and a larger trade deficit. China (and Japan, and Korea, etc) are the main villains with their intellectual property theft, limited access to their markets, currency manipulation, etc. That isn't fair trade...
@svvmichael1 You definitely have a point, we smile on china these days but the fact of the matter is they've been ripping us off BIG time. Unions are the problem though, so is inflation and high prices; competitive wages won't do it for workers in this country, which is why they unionize.
@defnite and BTW, for the most part the free market keeps business in check. If I get food poisoning at a Chili's I'll probably go elsewhere with my business, etc. The national gov't should only do its limited 17 constitutional powers and leave the rest to the states (who do the job much better anyway), and local gov'ts. If you don't believe in this, you need to go live elsewhere.
@svvmichael1 just pointing out the flaw of the free market like you describe, as history show us. That the problem with free market, it is reactionary. And to counter the bad effect of these recurring issue, government evolved and regulation were devised. Now the USA government is broken and corrupted. But for normal governance, regulation and law doesn't appear in thin air, they tend to be a response to a problem. And the libertarian answer to that is `remove regulation'. Regress.
@moestietabarnak a market will always have ups and downs, there is nothing wrong with that. Smart people plan for the cycles. But when gov't gets involved it makes the cycle behave much worse with much harder falls. 2008 was a case of too much regulation, not too little. You need to get educated.
@defnite America was founded on FREEDOM and taxes destroy freedom. Ergo the USA was founded on low taxes and very limited central gov't. King George-big gov't, Articles of Confederation- no gov't, US Constitution-very limited (17 powers) federal gov't. You need to learn. That is what I always find with liberals: ignorance. You pick out 1-2 things and thaink you have answers. I have a complete education and I destroy you every time.
@defnite I did not forget that you idiot. And liberals are King George all over. There should also be no representation without taxation. The liberal playbook for the last 80+ years has been to get 51% not paying taxes, steal the money from the middle class and up and buy elections. If gov't interference was good the Post Office would be highly profitable, instead it loses tens of billions of dollars while UPS, FEDEX and other private companies profit. EPIC FAIL.
@svvmichael1 Yes because we all know how people like George bush jr and Mitt Romney (iowa primary) when elections fairly. The 51% make peanuts, they only make about 2.5% of the economic wealth. No one is saying the government does not have efficiencies, my argument is that it is the best alternative for "ALL AMERICANS." Not just the selected few you would like to help.
@defnite Supply-side creates jobs, Keynes destroys jobs. It is proven that high taxes/gov't spending contract GDI by 7-18%, and that lowering taxes increases GDI by 3-12%. The Bush tax cuts was very positive for the economy you idiot. The problem we had was big gov't (i.e. Keynesian) policies by Carter. Carter's CRA in 1979, and Clinton's expansion of it in 1994 and 1997 caused the housing bubble. And Dems protecting Fannie/reddie caused it to burst badly. LEARN.
@svvmichael1 So you mean to tell me all of forms of government spending is bad? Yeah I don't think so. In fact 10 Nobel Prize winning economist came out against the bush tax cuts, mainly because they thought it would balloon the deficit. Again we are going to pretend as if Fanny and Freddie were the one's who started the sub prime crisis when we all know they got in late in the game. Even then most of the loans were given out by small banks that were back stopped by Freddie and Fannie.
@defnite WRONG!!!!! 1) Most gov't spending is bad, that is why the Founders gave the national gov't ONLY 17 things to do...but liberal idiots like you have let them violate the constitution. 2) The Nobel Prize is bogus. 14 Nobel Prize winners from pre-1980 have said that the recent selections of Krugman (a true fool) and Obama (a true fool) have cheapened the award. 3) The sub-prime crisis was caused by the CRA by Carter and its expansion by Clinton. Clintone admits as such. FAIL.
@svvmichael1 When did I ever say that clinton had nothing to do with it? Why did you completely gloss over the golden parachute that I also mentioned as one of the causes of the crash? Freidman only partially agreed to the bush tax cuts claiming that it might lead to government being forced to reduced it spending. I am man enough to admit I was wrong, you completely ignore every fact that I used as if they don't matter. Acting like reagon did not have his hand in the coockie jar is laughable.
What needs to be looked at is the employment rate not the unemployment rate. What percentage of the US population is paying payroll tax? Social Security recipients expect to have it both ways: the money they paid in has already been spent ON THEM coz it went into the general fund. If the payroll tax revenue really was ring-fenced then spending would have had to be cut or non-payroll taxes raised because the feds would have been unable to use the payroll tax to fund government.
Effectively women entering the workforce paid for the cost of government. Peter Schiff said that is what his father failed to foresee in the 1970s when he thought the US would collapse. Women entering the workforce changed the dynamic between taxpayers and welfare & social security recipients. There used to be 8 workers for every social security recipient. And most of those workers were men.
Numbers are a poor way to measure the quality of goods that improve the standard of living. A poor gadget lover now can buy better stuff than a rich gadget lover in the 1950s eg the personal jukebox that is the mp3 player with better quality sound in stereo. The variety of food has also widened. So technology really is masking how bad things really are eg a household should have a husband and wife both working only 2 days a week as in the Jetsons. Only single incomes needed in the past.
This lady is very attractive, and I’m glad she is on the right track.
Any quantity measured in irredeemable fraud-dollars is unscientific drivel. There is no MONEY in circulation anywhere in the world, and we know this because a money system does NOT produce any business cycles what-so-ever.
We force prosperity into the system by getting rid of the God damn bankers, that is how we get out of this mess.
John A Hobson takes down the Austrian "malinvestment due to inflation" theory of depressions, showing how underconsumption and net interest drain from loan money is the true cause. Check the validity of his refutation of malinvestment here: 4E79k-g63Xo (paste to YouTube search engine) other links on related analysis in "show more" section
@runelord37 - Keynesian economics is based on this reality: at times the market is not at full capacity due to speculation. It pulls resources from places they aren't currently being used. Detractors don't understand this and hence make fallacious arguments like " or pulling rabbit out of hats and stuffing them back into hats. all it is , is wealth tranference. if wealth has 0 value, then redistribution merely means that your pulling zeros out of hats."
2nd how does a pie chart show growth. How do we know that the overall number is not bigger when more goes to consumption? Investment in dollars may be higher too, just a lower percentage. Impossible to show in a pie chart.
Firstly, there is nothing "republican" about genuine libertarianism or free markets.
Secondly, what is described here is something called "Say's Law", something that was proven in the 19th century. Keynes did not reject Say's Law, he just thought it only applied in the long run, to allow for the existence of short-term shortfalls in effective demand.
If you're going to take the stance that Say's Law is false, you're going to have to reject mainstream economics.
There are also things to consider about 'bothersome' regulations. I've never looked in detail into business regulation; but I'd assume that many are in places for good purposes, even if they aren't economically ideal.
Eg: burning rules against lower standard surgeons undertaking risky cosmetic work on 12 year old girls with dismorphia may make the economy extra money; but is it right?
There's contention over economic solution since purists of different styles never got their way and a convoluted aberration formed in the void. Keynesians want expansion of a Keynesian style solution, while opponents want Keynesian thought to be completely purged.
If you want to attack Keynesian economics; look at the wider philosophy instead of pitting spending against tax cuts for todays economy and it's imbalances, lack of surplus reserves, and credit anxieties.
That stricter Keynesian approach has not been pursued for decades.
Today there are rows over stimulus via increased spending and tax cuts; both running up debt; or austerity via raised taxes and slashed spending to cut the deficit. Then you have Republican mix of slashed spending plus tax cuts; verses Democrat mix of tax rises and increased spending. Both bogus to either stimulus or austerity.
Once you've boosted economic activity, investment and employment to achieve a recovery; you raise taxes to pay back the money and run budget surpluses in the good times to pay for the bad.
The post Keynesian establishment also thought little of running deficits during the good times, nodding along to finance sector hubris on how the bad times were never coming back. So you have a stagnant economy together with a huge budget imbalance.
Keynesian economics is built on principles including not running trade deficits; which was thrown to the wayside when the Keynesian consesus was driven away in the 70s and the new policy thought little of outsourcing productive industry and running import heavy economies.
When you have a balanced economy then you can borrow from surplus countries while cutting taxes to stimulate domestic demand and encourage more investment and production.
....and the crowd gives a standing ovation!!! great trick, were happy. dow jones goes up because our dicks are hard....oh wait ...the whiskey is wearing off. that bitch really is ugly: loss of erection and the stock market plunges again. eventually beer goggles and viagra stop working...guess what happens then? complete impotence. take that analogy, stick it in your pipe. and fucking smoke it
Pretty girl, must switch off brain.. What a load of malarkey, oh that econ was so simple, we would not be in this mess.She assumes that the economy is fixed in the amount of money in the system. That if the 99% had more money then the investors would make more from selling goods and services.A job is a job it does not matter if it is a gov job or a private sector job.
@lmyoungmcse the amount of money in the system is irrelevant. the system itself is the only relevant subject. goverment produce nothing , therefore it creates no energy. only wages....if you produce nothing for the wage to purchase or export and your main support structure is debt, then that is a net drain. a goverment job is good for an individual, not the economy. the boost to the ecnomy from a goverment earned wage would be analogous to throwing gauze on hemmorhaged wound
@lmyoungmcse Of course it matters. Taxpayers fund private jobs by purchasing their goods and services; therefore, sending the signal that those are valuable. Taxpayers fund govt jobs even if they do not purchase their goods and services. HUGE DIFFERENCE!
Pretty girl, must switch off brain.. What a load of malarkey, oh that econ was so simple, we would not be in this mess.She assumes that the economy is fixed in the amount of money in the system. That if the 99% had more money then the investors would make more, because they own the stores and production of the goods consumed.
During an economic downturn, investment into the economy is low, so government spending isn't really shifting the allocation since it's not being allocated. Rather, it is helping make up for the lack of investment that occurs in a bull market. What's more is the Vegas analogy is just ridiculous. Stimulus spending has been shown to boost demand. Our economy when from losing over half a million jobs/month to leveling out and creating jobs month over month.
@ObamaFTWdotcom "Stimulus spending has been shown to boost demand." Shown by whom? Using what methods?
"Our economy when (sic) from losing over half a million jobs/month to leveling out and creating jobs month over month." This is pure post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. Demonstrate that the stimulus CAUSED that.
@ObamaFTWdotcom expanding credit to stimulate demand does not grow an economy because you have to have domestic productivity to increase your capital base to raise living standards and create real growth. Furthur increasing your trade defecit only exacerbates the problem in the LR because you become dependant upon imports to maintain living standards and the people proping up your way of life will not do it forever!
@Strange0ne and an even simpler way of stating it is this ; if you produce nothing of substance you can reap nothing of substance and therefore starve
@ObamaFTWdotcom what youre failing to understand is that stimulus is a small cartoon bandage on a severed limb. the only valid analogies for anything in this world relate to living systems or systems of cause and effect in physics. Keynesian economics uses the analogy of out of sight out of mind, or pulling rabbit out of hats and stuffing them back into hats. all it is , is wealth tranference. if wealth has 0 value, then redistribution merely means that your pulling zeros out of hats....
you are right but if we lower taxes then government would have to live within their means and we already know that politicians cannot control themselves it is human nature. this mess could easily be predicted and there is no end in sight.
creaky voice.
google it.
glovisy 5 days ago
You're waaay to hot for me to be able to concentrate on what you're saying, but i know I agree w/ you and I really enjoyed the video.
suitabledude 2 weeks ago
@CFPEcon101
i just masturbated to this.... :|
pseudonominous 2 weeks ago
@pseudonominous LMAO!!!
you831able 1 week ago
@you831able
:)
pseudonominous 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"Their minds are so small, their prospects so restricted, their knowledge so inadequate, their obstinacy so boundless"
- A quote from Keynes that can quite easily be applied to this video.
BasilFawlty4444 2 weeks ago 3
Keynesian economics put Britain back on the right track after being flattened in World War II.
BasilFawlty4444 3 weeks ago 2
@BasilFawlty4444 Yeah, from THE world superpower prior to WWI, to the stooges of the US and now the EU...
How the mighty have fallen!
nykos222 2 weeks ago
@nykos222 Not as a result of Keynesian economics my friend.
Britain fell because she exhausted herself in the struggle for liberty. The essential rule of history is that the mighty superpowers ALL fall, without exception.
Keynesianism is not to blame.
BasilFawlty4444 2 weeks ago
@BasilFawlty4444 THe only reason superpowers fall is when the Leftist mentality sinks in
superlucci 2 weeks ago
@superlucci Not true.
Do you think at Waterloo Napoleon's problem was a leftist mentality? I suppose Rome also fell because of socialism too?
Did a leftist mentality leave Britain with a war debt that she didn't repay until 2006?
No, no my friend. ALL superpowers fall, WITHOUT exception. It's the essential rule of history.
BasilFawlty4444 2 weeks ago
@BasilFawlty4444, said [[ I suppose Rome also fell because of socialism too?]]
Well largely, yes. They couldn't fund their over-extended welfare state and fell into ruin.
LucisFerre1 2 weeks ago
@LucisFerre1 While Rome did have a Welfare State, though not exactly as we in the modern world understand it, the structure was geared towards producing healthy soldiers for the Roman Legions.
It wouldn't be true to suggest that the funding of their welfare system was in any way a direct cause of Rome's downfall.
BasilFawlty4444 2 weeks ago
@BasilFawlty4444
It seems to me that the point is the burden put on the private economy by an overextended State - bet it one with Welfare or Warfare as its raison detre.
ffmarkm 1 week ago in playlist Favorite videos
@ffmarkm There's nothing wrong with welfare states.
Some of the richest and economically powerful countries in the world have them.
BasilFawlty4444 1 week ago
@BasilFawlty4444 True, but there IS however something wrong with spending more than you have for an extended period of time. It just so happens that the two tend to USUALLY go together, so it's usually a pretty safe bet that when you have one, you will have the other shortly, if not already.
theredscourge 1 week ago
@BasilFawlty4444 I disagree. A welfare state steals ridiculous sums of money from its people in the form of taxes.
JayMM117 4 days ago
@JayMM117 Look at it like this.
Granted, taxes will probably higher. In the UK, for the average earner income taxation is not that different from the US, but for those who earn over £150,000, it will be a lot higher.
But everybody gets free healthcare, state pension, reduced tuition fees (in Scotland and Wales NO tuition fees) and more. You'd have to pay for these things anyway; so you get back what you pay in.
Few people here would ever want do away with the Welfare State. We love it.
BasilFawlty4444 4 days ago
@BasilFawlty4444 This still steals money from people. Universal health care run by bureaucratic government officials lowers its quality. The government and law's only purpose is to protect individual liberty, not take away from liberty and property rights with misconceived philanthropy.
JayMM117 3 days ago
@JayMM117 So why did the Commonwealth Fund 'Mirror Mirror' report 2010 rank the UK health service #1 in the world for effective care (US #4) and the Netherlands #1 overall (UK #2, US #7).
You're confusing absolute philosophy with your own political orientation; even Locke agreed that taxes could be levied for services with the consent of a majority.
Americans pay taxes too, not that much less either, but are still crippled by healthcare debts and university fees.
I'll take the taxes.
BasilFawlty4444 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@BasilFawlty4444 said [[Keynesian economics put Britain back on the right track after being flattened in World War II.]]
Ha-Ha-Ha!!
Daniel Hannan MEP: The devalued Prime Minister of a devalued Government
/watch?v=94lW6Y4tBXs
AWESOME!!
LucisFerre1 2 weeks ago
You have merely ASSUMED complete crowding out.
aeiou99999 3 weeks ago
Is this satire? Do you really think legitimate economic analysis is done with pie charts and assertions?
aeiou99999 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@aeiou99999 said [[Is this satire? Do you really think legitimate economic analysis is done with pie charts and assertions?]]
Fancy you saying that about a five minute youtube video. Go home and cancel your youtube account in shame.
LucisFerre1 2 weeks ago
Back to porn you bimbo
djk28161 3 weeks ago
@moestietabarnak simple principles and freedom rather than an over complication of price fixing. The more you advocate complicating economics the greater potential for abuse there is. More regulation and reform only serve to create more abuse
iggsta3o5 3 weeks ago
@moestietabarnak will only expand its powers not in the benefit for the many but only the few. Keynesian economics operates under the assumption that the market is volatile its not it is Organic. Self interest with minimal government intervention best bolsters the market. A government that is limited to honoring contracts and the protection of property rights best serves the economy. Free markets may not be the perfect system but it is better than the alternative. Its a system that relies on
iggsta3o5 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@moestietabarnak yes your right Tarp is not Keynesian its is the abuse of Keynesian philosophy and theories. That is exactly why reform and regulation do not help or improve the situation they just produce unintended consequences. Its like the ideal of communism, what is meant as a movement to create equality with central planning has only lead to systimatic corruption. Government enforcement is a monopoly on markets. You can tout all the reform you want but central government
iggsta3o5 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
iggsta3o5 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@moestietabarnak The very bailouts Keynesian Economics suggests markets need in time of recession are not used or appropriated properly. I can agree that proper investments help an economy but your asking a system bought out by special interests to determine were those investments go. This is why after 800 billion dollars recovery is close to stagnant. Government does not know best on whom to invest since it only listens to those with deep wallets. A bailout only encourages bad investment
iggsta3o5 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
iggsta3o5 3 weeks ago
@iggsta3o5 also, the government can borrow at way lower rate than private citizen, thus a project earning 5% wouldnt be profitable for a private citizen to borrow at 8% for it, but profitable for the government who can borrow at 4% (with other saving)
moestietabarnak 3 weeks ago
@moestietabarnak Problem is is that that money is usually taken from the citizen with a tax. This discourages consumption, besides the point consumption only helps the economy when the market demands it. At times of economic strife savings are what help a market. If you try to price fix by lowering interest rate and pump false money into the market you get distorted prices. This leads to false signals telling business to invest when the market is not ready for it and in return the only real
iggsta3o5 3 weeks ago
The error above is there is no real borrowing - the federal government is the sole currency issuer and is not revenue constrained.
Fiscal spending creates money. Bond issue is a budget construct to tie books. It funds nothing and is simply an asset swap - bonds for money, both federal obligations, with no real assets/investment involved.
Fiscal spending increases aggregate demand. Economic response will be: If slack in productive capacity - growth. If at full capacity - inflation risk.
Crake71 3 weeks ago
@Crake71 We`re talking recession here ! .. productive capacity IS slacking!
and people are losing their skill
moestietabarnak 3 weeks ago
The federal government breaks everything they touch.
americanIDOLfan11111 3 weeks ago
@americanIDOLfan11111 correction, corruption (and republican that doesn't believe in government, thus break it to prove their point) break everything they touch
moestietabarnak 3 weeks ago
@moestietabarnak what did you correct? because even if the government had good intentions on some things.. they still fucked it up
americanIDOLfan11111 3 weeks ago
So misleading, you don't use your retirement for a trip to Vegas, you use your retirement to buy new tools and train skill..
in case of govnt, it's not paying people to dig a hole and to refill it, it's HIRING people to do useful thing like infrastructure etc, which 1- increase the overall productivity 2- keep your population trainned and employable, 3- decrease the unemployment (which is a cost too) and 4-jumpstart the consummation to break the spiral (less demand, more layoff ).
moestietabarnak 4 weeks ago
@moestietabarnak but it also come with a caveat, you must save/ cut the debt when thing are going well, which many don't (like the republican who prefer to cut taxes instead of the deficit, leaving no `marge de manoeuvre` later
moestietabarnak 4 weeks ago
yeah pretty lady, but one of the key idea of keynesianism is the multiplicator effect. And not just the shift inside the GDP as u mention. The only problem with economics is, when some pics on top cannot earn enough and put the people pursuits on gamble. For example all the bush advisers and now obamas advisers are those pics i mention. just LOOK for the Documentation: "INSIDE JOB !" !!!!!!
knallbirne3000 1 month ago
yes.. yes... you are totally right ... yes.... what was the topic again ?
knallbirne3000 1 month ago
I believe what ever you tell me pretty lady ! YOu wanna go shopping for shoes with me ?? :-D
knallbirne3000 1 month ago
Americans are gonna have to live below their means for awhile if we wanna make this country great again. You'll have to rent and not buy, get rid of the pool, get rid of the extra cars and stop taking vacations. We're going to have to earn our way up, just like in the old days, when this country was on the rise and the American dream was flourishing.
The sooner we do it, the faster it'll go by, and the less painful it'll be.
Spjungen 1 month ago
watch at 3:49 HOTTTT!!! LOL
watch & you'll agree! :)
Zaxxon2008 1 month ago
More garbage economics brought to you by Heritage sophistry. If you want to get it right read Paul Krugman.
BillSalem 1 month ago
@BillSalem If you want to learn how to destroy an entire economic system, read Paul Krugman...or simply read the Communist Manifesto, same thing.
svvmichael1 1 month ago
@svvmichael1 In fact, Marx is excellent reading. Apparently nobody told you, nor did you bother to learn, that McCarthyism is now spoken of with contempt. Marx's insight into class struggle throughout history; the barbarous exploitation of workers by a ruthless ruling class (a state you and your cronies apparently admire) finds a parallel underlined by OWS today.
Krugman won the Nobel Prize in Economics in 2008. Friedman in 1976. Like Friedman your views are outdated and second hand.
BillSalem 1 month ago
@BillSalem WRONG. Marx has been discredited completely since EVERY TIME a country has gone his route they have failed miserably, killed millions of innocent people, and taken all liberty away. NO ONE except left-wing zealots think Krugman is anything other than a fool. His ideas are rehash of tired Marxist/ Keynesian fluff that have FAILED EVERY TIME. Friedman, however, has been proven correct EVERY TIME. You are WRONG EVERY TIME and 5 different posters have exposed your ignorance.
svvmichael1 1 month ago
@svvmichael1 You become tiresome. I am aware Communism has historically failed. What I said is that Marx is a good read. Even someone as dull witted as you might benefit from a quick read. You might also want to rethink your need to gloss over the criminality inherent in Friedman's theories. Further, most people agree: on paper, Communism is a good idea. Somebody ought to try it sometime. The problem is not Marx but human nature. Oh, and as for your need to discredit Krugman --- pathetic.
BillSalem 1 month ago
@BillSalem Krugman is universally regarded as a fraud. Watch George Will destroy him you idiot. Krugman now refuses to appear on shows with Will because he gets crushed in any debate. Communism is a terrible idea, hence the fact it always fails. Friedman's ideas are far from criminal as they lift people from poverty into middle-class and wealthy strata. You are an old fool with tired, failed ideas. You are too stupid to learn. Bye now fool.
svvmichael1 1 month ago
@svvmichael1 Your continued ad hominem attacks serve only to identify you as the typically unbalanced partisan right wing wacko authoritarian submissive. Nothing more. George Will's style is that of a prissy, cerebral ball-less wonder whose faulty logic has led him to a barren, useless position as a bootlicking sycophant of Corporate Republicanism. I watched Will squirm in abject defeat when he was thoroughly trounced by Barney Frank. Barney is so much smarter than the pretentious Will! LOL
BillSalem 1 month ago
@BillSalem Ummm, Barney got so crushed by Will he told the producers he would never appear on the program again if Will was present. Barney Frank is a main reason for the 2008 financial collapse. And ad hominem is not a negative thing, your ignorance is relevant in this debate, as you 1) attack me and 2) show a total lack of intelligence and knowledge. You have yet to post even 1 truthful, relevant fact to back up any of your flawed arguments. You are a leftist, jealous, hating...
svvmichael1 1 month ago
@BillSalem ...misanthrope with barely an 8th grade education. You can't even understand the video on this page. You lose.
svvmichael1 1 month ago
she is gorgeous
WinkyMaeve 1 month ago
By the end if this entire sever economic fiasco, Keynesian economics will be buried for good!
Aeros802 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@marketanarchist2011 All those countries rise were due to high savings/ investment, meaning that the government actually hold a lot of capital.(i.e big gov.) Btw China does not practice Laissez-faire they are still TVE that make up a huge part of their economy. US rose due to WWII.
2. Consumption is everything if the companies producing the products are in your country.
3. Bush tax cuts
4. Obviously not. But if I knew I had a safety net to fall back on, I would be more incline to take risks.
defnite 2 months ago 2
Comment removed
defnite 2 months ago
Keynesean DOES work.History proves it.This lady's facts are arbitrary and incomeplete.Another fascist pig she most likely is!
jelisa46 2 months ago
@jelisa46 Keynesian economics works great IF you work for the govt.
Pay yourself first yah ! Screw the consumer ,screw the market,screw the tax payer.
Govt. market management working for people , all over the world.
9avedon 2 months ago
@jelisa46 the fuck
IncoherentCommenter 1 month ago
Consumer spending causes growth. It's the BASE of capitalism !!
MenwithHill 2 months ago
Called an institute cuz INSTITUTE is a serious word and that'll make it look more serious. And not so much like the flim flammery it actually is--- of a buncha asshole Republicans trying desperately to find a legitimate moral and ethical compass for their criminal economic belief systems. Truth is, they are just a bunch of authoritarians who were abused as children and never did resolve those conflicts where they wanted to kill their dads. Result: Conservative Republicans. Grow up, jerks!
BillSalem 2 months ago 2
@BillSalem How is less government authoritarian? Authoritarianism is what were moving toward today. Government bails out and subsidizes large corporations, over regulates and overtaxes small business, infringes on our civil liberties left and right, sends us to war very recklessly, and lets the Federal Reserve constantly print trillions of $ to lend to corporations and fund wars causing everyones money to be devalued. Republicans and Democrats are both authoritarian.
415Dub 1 month ago
@415Dub Authoritarian submissives elected Bush2, not once but twice. He's a dominant authoritarian & initiated Illegitimate war and torture. He likes his boots licked. History will show him guilty of War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity. Government is still made up of humans, each with his own style. Answerable to his own masters, the Shadow Government. i.e. The Council on Foreign Relations calls the shots, whether federal government is big or small. When CFR wants war there is war.
BillSalem 1 month ago
@BillSalem I fully agree, Bush was very authoritarian. Obama is as well.
415Dub 1 month ago
@BillSalem Nothing will ever get better in this nation until Americans get over their President fetish and start paying better attention to the 535 members of Congress and the Senate that actually *do* just about everything.
araeshkigal 1 month ago
how u doin? ;)
MrJohny360 2 months ago 2
So 69 to 71 is not an increase ? Wow. Republicans can't do math. Is a 2% increase in government spending that much of a price to pay for higher consumption? And is it really that terrible that investment which is actually gambling and speculation on Wall st, dips slightly ? Poor Wall St billionaires, would be hurt miniscule by that. And I guess you think that workers are paid too much. Poor CEO's billionaires have to pay so much to their employees. You're just another mouth piece,
CrusaderDom3 2 months ago
1) Tax cuts, less regulations, as well liberalization of markets don't always have positive trade-offs. 2) Cutting taxes you are doing just reducing the size of government putting it in consumption and investment not increasing GDP. 3) The las vegas allusion was a clearly hyperbolic, and borrowing money is actually good for the economy until it gets out of control. Ask Reagon. 4) Keynes safety net incentives risk taking which leads to more businesses being created.
defnite 2 months ago
@defnite How much did that work over the past ten years ?? Please do your homework before you make yourself look like an ass.
CrusaderDom3 2 months ago
@CrusaderDom3 Lol. Do my homework, I study economics what about you. As for your "past ten years" quip the problem was not keynes economic but rather bush tax cuts. Remember we did have a surplus before Bush took office. He idiotically cut taxes and while increasing government spending, that´s just bad math.
defnite 2 months ago
@defnite My fault, I was just mistaken about what you were saying. We do agree.
CrusaderDom3 2 months ago
@defnite You obviously do not understand economics at all. Find a way to finish high school, then come talk to the adults. Keynes has been completely disproven over the last 60 years, while Friedmanism is the economic theory that clearly has worked/won in the marketplace. Bush and Obama are the same big spenders, so your attempt actually lost you credibility. Gov't spending hurts people and destroys economies. Go buy a book on economics.
svvmichael1 1 month ago
@svvmichael1 It wouldn't be the first time the books were wrong. Friedman sucks! He's not just wrong, he's dead wrong. I agree with Friedman on one issue only and that is on legalizing drugs. If people get hooked on drugs, its no skin off my nose; let them die. Period. Friedman and Ayn Rand, along with Hayek, need to be erased from history. In the long term Friedman works only for the few. Even Adam Smith says that the free market only works if all citizens have equality.
BillSalem 1 month ago
@BillSalem And freedom and equality is what Friedman and Hayek are all about. You are a jealous, lazy fool so you support theft like Keynes. Every study since 1950 has proven Keynes wrong anf Friedman right. So, you lose.
svvmichael1 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@svvmichael1 "You are a jealous, lazy fool so you support theft like Keynes."
This is how attack poodles like you win an argument? Just re-act to those who actually can think. You know precious little about Friedman other than a few YouTube videos. Friedman was the criminal who told Nixon it'd be swell to have the CIA invade a sovereign nation, murder a democratically elected leader simply because he refused to play ball with Corporate America; and then to install a murderous puppet.
BillSalem 1 month ago
@svvmichael1 Lol. I need to buy a textbook. Where are your facts or statistics that support your premise?
defnite 1 month ago
@defnite In the textbooks that you refuse to read.
svvmichael1 1 month ago
@svvmichael1 Since I study economics, weekly reader of the economist and financial times I am not sure what you are talking about. You only made a claim not an argument. Therefore I believe it is fair to assume you lack sufficient evidence to back your claim. I have shown my evidence, which essentially gave you to refute my claims and you can't even do that. It is clear that you lack the mental faculties for this debate so I won't respond again.
defnite 1 month ago
@defnite Since I have an MBA, own several businesses, am active in the Chamber of Commerce, and have studied economics in depth and earn more in a year than you'll make in 10 years, I conclude you are ignorant of all principles of economics. Friedman was a Keynesian in the 40's, he did a massive research study and found that Keynes was horribly wrong, and he created the most successful school of economic thought. Taxation shrinks economies ALWAYS, you need to go to a better school.
svvmichael1 1 month ago
@defnite BTW I have a BAME from Geaorgia Tech and an MBA from Northwestern. You have made absolutely no sense on this page and have been destroyed by at least 6 different posters. You are a complete socialist, anti-american douchebag that needs to go to hell. It has been proven that tax dollars used for gov't spending (because of the inefficiencies of bureaucracy) return only .82 to .93 per tax 1.00. For every dollar NOT taxed it generates 1.03 to 1.12 in increased GDP. Bye now.
svvmichael1 1 month ago
@svvmichael1 lol. Somebody got their panties in a bunch. I was "destroyed". By who? In what way? If lowering taxes why didn't the bush tax cuts create the jobs conservatives promised. Why did Reagonomics fail so bad that it lead to the biggest recession since the 1940's? No one is saying Keynesian economics was perfect, but is best option so far. Also america was not founded on low taxes as many ignorant people think. (look up Whiskey Rebellion)
defnite 1 month ago
@defnite So, as a Keynesian, you are all about lying? Reagan created the biggest peacetime expansion in the history of the world. Carter's Keynesianism left us with 13.5% unemployment, 11% inflation, and 18% interest rates. By 1986 unemployment was at 4.8%, inflation at 3%, and interest rates at 7%...the most successful economic program ever. The 90's were because of Reagan as well after the Repubs took congress. 1996 100% of Fortune 500 CEO said economy was because of Reagan not Bubba.
svvmichael1 1 month ago
@svvmichael1 Ronald reagon released his tax cuts in 1981 and the unemployment in 1983 was 11.2%. Even though I agree Bill Clinton played a huge role in the financial crisis. The problem as expressed in the book "All the devils are here" started under Reagan. In fact I could make the argument that the cause of the crisis was due to the fact there were no regulations of the derivatives market as well as the fact that golden parachutes gave bankers an incentive to take risks.
defnite 1 month ago
@svvmichael1 Also you were right on the me being wrong, on the recession. I apologize for that. Ronald Reagan turned the US from creditor nation to a debt nation. We must also include the debt people in general took on during his administration which lead to income stagnation. Lets not forget the rising gap between the rich and the poor. Of course CEO would give reagan credit, he helped them even when it wasn't in the country's interest.
defnite 1 month ago
@defnite YOu must enjoy lying. 1) Unemployment in 1980 13.7%, in 1983 10.5% in 1986 4.9%. BOOOOOOOOOM Reagan wins 2) Reagan did not cause the debt, he forced congress to reduce taxes and then submitted 6 balanced budgets out of 8. Democrats who had huge majorities in the house, led by Tip O'Neill said those budgets were "Dead on arrival" because they did not care about the USA, just about buying votes. You see fool, the House originates all spending. Go read the constitution. Bye fool.
svvmichael1 1 month ago
@svvmichael1 No actually I was right there was a decline from 13.7 and then there was a rise that peaked in low and behold 1983 at (drum rose please) 11.2%. There was a double dip recession under Reagon if you remember during his first term in office. Also Reagan raised taxes in 1982 and 1983. So lets turn that boom back into a fizzle. Why aren't you acknolwedging the growing the debt the country took on during reagan? Or the us changing from the largest creditor to the largest debtor?
defnite 1 month ago
@defnite It wasn't in the country's best interest for Reagan to reduce unemployment from 13.5% under Carter to 4.9% ???????????? You are a liberal socialist misanthrope. You don't even understand basic economics. You are laughable. You have proven to be completely ignorant of how tha constitution works, and don't even know what the CRA is that Carter and Clinton used to collapse the economy. You are too stupid to understand that Dodd-Frank is the worst law passed in decades as well.
svvmichael1 1 month ago
@svvmichael1 I never said that reducing the unemployment rate was not in the country's interest. (straw man fallacy btw) The rising gap between the rich and the poor was not in the country's interest. Neither was the income stagnation that took place. I would also like to mention that in Obama term his rates 14% lower than Reagan Tax cuts in 1981. Dodd Frank has not been fully utilized and in fact been water down by lobbyists. Stop hiding behind insults and let your argument speak for itself.
defnite 1 month ago
@defnite You have been completely discredited as an unintelligent, ignorant misanthrope who hates the USA. Go elsewhere and start a new Soviet land fool.
svvmichael1 1 month ago
@svvmichael1 Do you always insult people when you can't defend your viewpoints? You seem a bit childish. There are arguments on both sides of the table some valid and others invalid, you get no where by insulting people that disagree with you. You have as much ground calling me an "Anti- america" or socialist as I do calling you an "Anti-Christian" or "Anarchists". Convincing yourself that I am a socialist does not make you more right. Facts are facts whether you choose to accept or ignore them.
defnite 1 month ago
@defnite 1) Reagan contributed $0 to the national debt. His tax policies generated up to 7% growth in yearly GDP. He stated he wanted lower gov't spending and Tip O'Neill and the Democrats continued to use the Treasury as a pay-off system for votes. Reagan sent 6 of 8 BALANCED BUDGETS. So you have failed on everything on that era. Tip O'Neill and the Dems are responsible 100% for the Deficits of the 80's. Reagan gets 85% of the credit for the Great economy from '83 (it does take time...
svvmichael1 1 month ago
@svvmichael Reagan is in office and the democrats rule congress, it is Congresses fault for the deficit but if Obama is in office and the republicans rule congress than it is Obama's fault. That is not sound logic. I didn't fail on this era, Reagan did cut taxes and borrowed the rest of the money. Reagan agreed to the extra spending. He turned US from biggest creditor nation to the biggest debtor nation virtually over night. Note your percentage of credit seem arbitrary to say the least.
defnite 1 month ago
@defnite ...for tax cuts to work) to 1999. 2) Clinton tried to destroy the economy from Jan93 to Jan95 by being a socialist. His deficits were actually nearly $500Billion in those years. Then Newt and the Republicans came to power, passed Welfare reform and other major cuts and created a SURPLUS which 90% of the credit goes to Newt and the Repubs. 3) 1979 Carter creates an abomination called CRA (which you still don't know what that is, I have mentioned it 6 times and you have yet to...
svvmichael1 1 month ago
@svvmichael1 Yes Reagan was responsible for the dot com boom that took place under clinton. Who would of thought that cutting taxes in 1981 virtually would lead to invention of the internet (sarcasm btw). Wasn't it Clinton that also help deregulate wall street during the housing boom (that socialist pig. lol.) So none of that surplus was due to the added revenue from the tax increases. (Really?) Also wasn't it reagan that passed SMMEA that allowed people pension to be invested in MBS. How did...
defnite 1 month ago
@svvmichael1 ... that turn out again? Btw I like how you are trying so hard to distance reagan from the boom when in fact he was one of the main players involved. The CRA was not to blame. Due to the fact that to be considered low income you had to make less then the median income in your neighborhood. For example if I lived in Neighborhood in which the average income was 100,000, than if I make 95,000 a year I am considered low income.Quotas were easy to meet.Problems came from no oversight...
defnite 1 month ago
@defnite ...acknowledge) which forced lenders to make bad loans. Clinton expanded it in 1994 and 1997 with Cisneros and Rubin (who used it to reap huge personal profit at Citibank). They forced banks to make0%-5% down mtg programs for people with bad credit. This created a huge artificial demand for housing which drove prices skyhigh until the bubble burst. Democrats protected their donors at Fannie/Freddie (like Franklin Raines, Obama's economic advisor who raped taxpayers for ...
svvmichael1 1 month ago
@defnite ...$100million in personal profit by lying, cheating and stealing) until that bubble burst. The responsibilty for the 2008 collapse Democrats 85%, Republicans 15%. There is a youtube video of Bill Clinton admitting as much. There is a video on youtube of Franklin Raines lying to congress as well. EPIC FAIL for you. 3) The Constitution prohibits the national gov't from getting involved in the economy and especially picking winners and losers. The Democrats from 1933 to Now...
svvmichael1 1 month ago
@defnite ... have controlled congress for 80% of that time. During those years they created an incomprehensible tax code to help the ultra-rich (who are vastly democrat) and the lazy poor to buy their votes. The Dems target the middle-class for destruction. All liberal/socialist societies delvole into a 2 class society. Look at the voting for the lazy poor (not the hard-workers but the lazy) and they are 90% Democrat. People earning over $1 million are 65% Democrat. The middle is 68%...
svvmichael1 1 month ago
@defnite ...Republican, and since this country was started for the benefit and freedom of the small business entreprenuer and not the lazy or the elite/royalty they are the true conscience of the USA. Therefore, you are a socialist buffoon who lies and/or is completely ignorant of economics and history. 4) Dodd-Frank has not been watered down, it is an ignorant law that will cripple our country. It will make it so only 3-5 banks can originate mortgages...talk about "Too big to Fail"...
svvmichael1 1 month ago
@svvmichael1 ... the derivative markets. Which republican were staunchly against. Please do not claim the republicans are the party of the middle class. You know and I know you that is BS. The republicans were willing to raise taxes on everyone if the rich were not allowed to keep there tax cuts last year. The republicans are the strongest advocates of citizen united act and is the republicans who have always been the party of the elite/ royalty just look at Mitt Romney and Jon Huntsman. That...
defnite 1 month ago
@defnite 5) The problems with the USA do have origins on both sides. Big labor and socialist liberal confiscatory tax policies on individuals and corporations and ridiculous regulations FORCE companies to fire people here and go overseas. completely Free Trade allows country with better/lower regulations and low taxes and labor costs to gobble up those jobs and sell back to us created large trade deficits. We need to get out of the WTO and NAFTA, negotiate FAIR trade agreements...
svvmichael1 1 month ago
@svvmichael1 ... is why average Americans can't relate to them. To say that the US has not gained/ "stolen" (I use this term lightly) jobs from other countries due to NAFTA is just not accurate. NAFTA was the reason for the Zapatilla Revolt in mexico. You of all people should support free trade because it allows people to buy products for cheap. We helped start WTO and hold the most influence why would we leave it? I am supposed to be the socialist, why are you arguing against laissez faire?
defnite 1 month ago
@defnite ...disband the NLRB, reduce/eliminate the power of Unions, drop corporate rate to 10%, eliminate 80-90% of all regulations, create a simple 2 page tax code based on the Fair Tax with a small income tax component for incomes over $500k (indexed). Then eliminate teahcers unions, eliminate 75% of school districts "administrative" jobs which are just crony socialist jobs, and use that savings to pay HIGHLY QUALIFIED teachers $80-100k/yr attracting top talent. This plan...
svvmichael1 1 month ago
@svvmichael1 You of all should know that is more beneficial for the US to focus on highly skilled labor like building cars, developing patents, developing weapons etc. to sell to other countries because we have the competitive advantage.Getting rid of 80-90% of regulation is a joke, but I agree we should bust the teachers union to atleast make it easier to fire them. All unions are not bad, depends on what they are demanding. ( I am so-so on this claim). Getting loopholes is a good idea for tax.
defnite 1 month ago
@defnite ...would drop unemployment to 3-4% w/in 4 years, GDP and GDI would grow at 6-8% annually. 6) Gov't spending must be pegged at no more than 14% of GDP at the national level. Any more is wasteful as gov't has never created a job or performed a service as well as the private sector. You lose Keynesian socialist. I win. Go back to school.
svvmichael1 1 month ago
@svvmichael1 Your plan seems bold to say the least. Government spending should reflect the point and time. If we are in decline the Government should spend in order to stimulate the economy. Investing in new innovative projects, education, infrastructure, etc. I never agreed with the notion that gov't should compete with the private sector, I believe the government should oversee businesses. To keep businesses in check if the government doesn't do it than no one will.
defnite 1 month ago
@defnite It is good to see that 10% of your thoughts are correct. But on Reagan you are simply wrong on every front. First you need to read the constitution, then learn US history to understand the relationship of the House/Senate/President. Different eras even change that dynamic. In the 80's Reagan successfully pressured the heavily democrat congress to cut taxes, improve the military, and reduce some regulations which allowed us to create 20+ million jobs in 7 years, and 55+million..
svvmichael1 1 month ago
@defnite ...jobs over 18 years. Nearly all economists give Reagan credit for this. BTW, the Clinton tax increases actually reduced revenues, as is nearly always the case. Taxes cause people to change behavior, which is why this tax code (88% of which was written by democrats) is so bad. It punishes success, it punishes savings, it drives people to consume blindly even into large debt. It also makes businesses move jobs overseas. The Repubs in congress in the 90's created the balanced...
svvmichael1 1 month ago
@defnite ...Clinton was smart enough to go along for the ride. GWB was not a conservative. His tax cuts did increase revenues (as nearly always happens) and creadted 6 million jobs from '01-'07. Repubs in congress were very upset at his increases in spending (a very un-conservative thing), but didn't stop him, so they get blame as well. Obama had a massive dem majority and did his best to destroy the USA, and it may still happen. Obamacare (said by his own GAO) will cost the U.S...
svvmichael1 1 month ago
@defnite ...10 million jobs over the next 10 years. He forced American Airlines to send $2billion in business to AIRBUS (a french company) away from Boeing ( a truly american company), in order to keep paying off big labor. He also cost South Carolina 9,000 for this political reason (since he knows he won't win SC). IBM is building a new facility in India because the Federal Gov't made them. Cost the US 30,000 jobs there. Gov't involved in industry is always bad.
svvmichael1 1 month ago
@defnite as far as trade, I am all for FAIR trade, not FREE trade. I want to have a country with a strong manufacturing base for all those (hopefully former union) workers. Yes we have had benefits from WTO and NAFTA, but we have a net loss in jobs and a larger trade deficit. China (and Japan, and Korea, etc) are the main villains with their intellectual property theft, limited access to their markets, currency manipulation, etc. That isn't fair trade...
svvmichael1 1 month ago
@svvmichael1 You definitely have a point, we smile on china these days but the fact of the matter is they've been ripping us off BIG time. Unions are the problem though, so is inflation and high prices; competitive wages won't do it for workers in this country, which is why they unionize.
Spjungen 1 month ago
@defnite and BTW, for the most part the free market keeps business in check. If I get food poisoning at a Chili's I'll probably go elsewhere with my business, etc. The national gov't should only do its limited 17 constitutional powers and leave the rest to the states (who do the job much better anyway), and local gov'ts. If you don't believe in this, you need to go live elsewhere.
svvmichael1 1 month ago
@svvmichael1 oh cool, the Chili owner will go bankrupt ! AFTER he killed you
moestietabarnak 4 weeks ago
@moestietabarnak are you on crack?
svvmichael1 3 weeks ago
@svvmichael1 just pointing out the flaw of the free market like you describe, as history show us. That the problem with free market, it is reactionary. And to counter the bad effect of these recurring issue, government evolved and regulation were devised. Now the USA government is broken and corrupted. But for normal governance, regulation and law doesn't appear in thin air, they tend to be a response to a problem. And the libertarian answer to that is `remove regulation'. Regress.
moestietabarnak 3 weeks ago
@moestietabarnak a market will always have ups and downs, there is nothing wrong with that. Smart people plan for the cycles. But when gov't gets involved it makes the cycle behave much worse with much harder falls. 2008 was a case of too much regulation, not too little. You need to get educated.
svvmichael1 3 weeks ago
@defnite America was founded on FREEDOM and taxes destroy freedom. Ergo the USA was founded on low taxes and very limited central gov't. King George-big gov't, Articles of Confederation- no gov't, US Constitution-very limited (17 powers) federal gov't. You need to learn. That is what I always find with liberals: ignorance. You pick out 1-2 things and thaink you have answers. I have a complete education and I destroy you every time.
svvmichael1 1 month ago
@svvmichael1 I pretty sure you are forgetting one important reason the U.S. fought this war. "Taxation without REPRESENTATION" ring any bells.
defnite 1 month ago
@defnite I did not forget that you idiot. And liberals are King George all over. There should also be no representation without taxation. The liberal playbook for the last 80+ years has been to get 51% not paying taxes, steal the money from the middle class and up and buy elections. If gov't interference was good the Post Office would be highly profitable, instead it loses tens of billions of dollars while UPS, FEDEX and other private companies profit. EPIC FAIL.
svvmichael1 1 month ago
@svvmichael1 Yes because we all know how people like George bush jr and Mitt Romney (iowa primary) when elections fairly. The 51% make peanuts, they only make about 2.5% of the economic wealth. No one is saying the government does not have efficiencies, my argument is that it is the best alternative for "ALL AMERICANS." Not just the selected few you would like to help.
defnite 1 month ago
@defnite Supply-side creates jobs, Keynes destroys jobs. It is proven that high taxes/gov't spending contract GDI by 7-18%, and that lowering taxes increases GDI by 3-12%. The Bush tax cuts was very positive for the economy you idiot. The problem we had was big gov't (i.e. Keynesian) policies by Carter. Carter's CRA in 1979, and Clinton's expansion of it in 1994 and 1997 caused the housing bubble. And Dems protecting Fannie/reddie caused it to burst badly. LEARN.
svvmichael1 1 month ago
@svvmichael1 So you mean to tell me all of forms of government spending is bad? Yeah I don't think so. In fact 10 Nobel Prize winning economist came out against the bush tax cuts, mainly because they thought it would balloon the deficit. Again we are going to pretend as if Fanny and Freddie were the one's who started the sub prime crisis when we all know they got in late in the game. Even then most of the loans were given out by small banks that were back stopped by Freddie and Fannie.
defnite 1 month ago
@defnite WRONG!!!!! 1) Most gov't spending is bad, that is why the Founders gave the national gov't ONLY 17 things to do...but liberal idiots like you have let them violate the constitution. 2) The Nobel Prize is bogus. 14 Nobel Prize winners from pre-1980 have said that the recent selections of Krugman (a true fool) and Obama (a true fool) have cheapened the award. 3) The sub-prime crisis was caused by the CRA by Carter and its expansion by Clinton. Clintone admits as such. FAIL.
svvmichael1 1 month ago
@svvmichael1 When did I ever say that clinton had nothing to do with it? Why did you completely gloss over the golden parachute that I also mentioned as one of the causes of the crash? Freidman only partially agreed to the bush tax cuts claiming that it might lead to government being forced to reduced it spending. I am man enough to admit I was wrong, you completely ignore every fact that I used as if they don't matter. Acting like reagon did not have his hand in the coockie jar is laughable.
defnite 1 month ago
@defnite 1. Laissez-faire has always worked better. Look at China, Hong Kong, Singapore, 19th century America.
2. Consumption is not everything. Production and profit, yes.
3. 15 trillion $ is out of control.
4. Increasing risk will decrease investment! WOuld you make a bussines if you knew that you risk loosing it?
marketanarchist2011 2 months ago
Comment removed
defnite 2 months ago
What needs to be looked at is the employment rate not the unemployment rate. What percentage of the US population is paying payroll tax? Social Security recipients expect to have it both ways: the money they paid in has already been spent ON THEM coz it went into the general fund. If the payroll tax revenue really was ring-fenced then spending would have had to be cut or non-payroll taxes raised because the feds would have been unable to use the payroll tax to fund government.
Vaserlan 2 months ago
Effectively women entering the workforce paid for the cost of government. Peter Schiff said that is what his father failed to foresee in the 1970s when he thought the US would collapse. Women entering the workforce changed the dynamic between taxpayers and welfare & social security recipients. There used to be 8 workers for every social security recipient. And most of those workers were men.
Vaserlan 2 months ago
Numbers are a poor way to measure the quality of goods that improve the standard of living. A poor gadget lover now can buy better stuff than a rich gadget lover in the 1950s eg the personal jukebox that is the mp3 player with better quality sound in stereo. The variety of food has also widened. So technology really is masking how bad things really are eg a household should have a husband and wife both working only 2 days a week as in the Jetsons. Only single incomes needed in the past.
Vaserlan 2 months ago
This lady is very attractive, and I’m glad she is on the right track.
Any quantity measured in irredeemable fraud-dollars is unscientific drivel. There is no MONEY in circulation anywhere in the world, and we know this because a money system does NOT produce any business cycles what-so-ever.
We force prosperity into the system by getting rid of the God damn bankers, that is how we get out of this mess.
centurion180ad 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
John A Hobson takes down the Austrian "malinvestment due to inflation" theory of depressions, showing how underconsumption and net interest drain from loan money is the true cause. Check the validity of his refutation of malinvestment here: 4E79k-g63Xo (paste to YouTube search engine) other links on related analysis in "show more" section
oldickeastman 2 months ago
@runelord37 - Keynesian economics is based on this reality: at times the market is not at full capacity due to speculation. It pulls resources from places they aren't currently being used. Detractors don't understand this and hence make fallacious arguments like " or pulling rabbit out of hats and stuffing them back into hats. all it is , is wealth tranference. if wealth has 0 value, then redistribution merely means that your pulling zeros out of hats."
ObamaFTWdotcom 2 months ago
@LordKhyron85 - The success of stimulus spending is demonstrated on obamaftw dotcom where I'm not limited to 500 characters.
ObamaFTWdotcom 2 months ago
That is the worst informative video ever.
1st no real data except in pie chart form
2nd how does a pie chart show growth. How do we know that the overall number is not bigger when more goes to consumption? Investment in dollars may be higher too, just a lower percentage. Impossible to show in a pie chart.
Is this how republicans sort data?
hjim 2 months ago
@hjim
Firstly, there is nothing "republican" about genuine libertarianism or free markets.
Secondly, what is described here is something called "Say's Law", something that was proven in the 19th century. Keynes did not reject Say's Law, he just thought it only applied in the long run, to allow for the existence of short-term shortfalls in effective demand.
If you're going to take the stance that Say's Law is false, you're going to have to reject mainstream economics.
StatelessLiberty 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
There are also things to consider about 'bothersome' regulations. I've never looked in detail into business regulation; but I'd assume that many are in places for good purposes, even if they aren't economically ideal.
Eg: burning rules against lower standard surgeons undertaking risky cosmetic work on 12 year old girls with dismorphia may make the economy extra money; but is it right?
MichaelJ9999 2 months ago
Comment removed
MichaelJ9999 2 months ago
(cont.)
There's contention over economic solution since purists of different styles never got their way and a convoluted aberration formed in the void. Keynesians want expansion of a Keynesian style solution, while opponents want Keynesian thought to be completely purged.
If you want to attack Keynesian economics; look at the wider philosophy instead of pitting spending against tax cuts for todays economy and it's imbalances, lack of surplus reserves, and credit anxieties.
MichaelJ9999 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
(continued...)
That stricter Keynesian approach has not been pursued for decades.
Today there are rows over stimulus via increased spending and tax cuts; both running up debt; or austerity via raised taxes and slashed spending to cut the deficit. Then you have Republican mix of slashed spending plus tax cuts; verses Democrat mix of tax rises and increased spending. Both bogus to either stimulus or austerity.
MichaelJ9999 2 months ago
Comment removed
MichaelJ9999 2 months ago
Comment removed
MichaelJ9999 2 months ago
Comment removed
MichaelJ9999 2 months ago
Comment removed
MichaelJ9999 2 months ago
(continued...)
Once you've boosted economic activity, investment and employment to achieve a recovery; you raise taxes to pay back the money and run budget surpluses in the good times to pay for the bad.
The post Keynesian establishment also thought little of running deficits during the good times, nodding along to finance sector hubris on how the bad times were never coming back. So you have a stagnant economy together with a huge budget imbalance.
MichaelJ9999 2 months ago
Keynesian economics is built on principles including not running trade deficits; which was thrown to the wayside when the Keynesian consesus was driven away in the 70s and the new policy thought little of outsourcing productive industry and running import heavy economies.
When you have a balanced economy then you can borrow from surplus countries while cutting taxes to stimulate domestic demand and encourage more investment and production.
MichaelJ9999 2 months ago
....and the crowd gives a standing ovation!!! great trick, were happy. dow jones goes up because our dicks are hard....oh wait ...the whiskey is wearing off. that bitch really is ugly: loss of erection and the stock market plunges again. eventually beer goggles and viagra stop working...guess what happens then? complete impotence. take that analogy, stick it in your pipe. and fucking smoke it
runelord37 2 months ago
Pretty girl, must switch off brain.. What a load of malarkey, oh that econ was so simple, we would not be in this mess.She assumes that the economy is fixed in the amount of money in the system. That if the 99% had more money then the investors would make more from selling goods and services.A job is a job it does not matter if it is a gov job or a private sector job.
lmyoungmcse 3 months ago
@lmyoungmcse the amount of money in the system is irrelevant. the system itself is the only relevant subject. goverment produce nothing , therefore it creates no energy. only wages....if you produce nothing for the wage to purchase or export and your main support structure is debt, then that is a net drain. a goverment job is good for an individual, not the economy. the boost to the ecnomy from a goverment earned wage would be analogous to throwing gauze on hemmorhaged wound
runelord37 2 months ago
@lmyoungmcse Of course it matters. Taxpayers fund private jobs by purchasing their goods and services; therefore, sending the signal that those are valuable. Taxpayers fund govt jobs even if they do not purchase their goods and services. HUGE DIFFERENCE!
mjmayerjr 2 months ago
Pretty girl, must switch off brain.. What a load of malarkey, oh that econ was so simple, we would not be in this mess.She assumes that the economy is fixed in the amount of money in the system. That if the 99% had more money then the investors would make more, because they own the stores and production of the goods consumed.
lmyoungmcse 3 months ago
During an economic downturn, investment into the economy is low, so government spending isn't really shifting the allocation since it's not being allocated. Rather, it is helping make up for the lack of investment that occurs in a bull market. What's more is the Vegas analogy is just ridiculous. Stimulus spending has been shown to boost demand. Our economy when from losing over half a million jobs/month to leveling out and creating jobs month over month.
ObamaFTWdotcom 3 months ago
@ObamaFTWdotcom "Stimulus spending has been shown to boost demand." Shown by whom? Using what methods?
"Our economy when (sic) from losing over half a million jobs/month to leveling out and creating jobs month over month." This is pure post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. Demonstrate that the stimulus CAUSED that.
LordKhyron85 3 months ago
@ObamaFTWdotcom expanding credit to stimulate demand does not grow an economy because you have to have domestic productivity to increase your capital base to raise living standards and create real growth. Furthur increasing your trade defecit only exacerbates the problem in the LR because you become dependant upon imports to maintain living standards and the people proping up your way of life will not do it forever!
Strange0ne 3 months ago
@Strange0ne and an even simpler way of stating it is this ; if you produce nothing of substance you can reap nothing of substance and therefore starve
runelord37 2 months ago
@ObamaFTWdotcom what youre failing to understand is that stimulus is a small cartoon bandage on a severed limb. the only valid analogies for anything in this world relate to living systems or systems of cause and effect in physics. Keynesian economics uses the analogy of out of sight out of mind, or pulling rabbit out of hats and stuffing them back into hats. all it is , is wealth tranference. if wealth has 0 value, then redistribution merely means that your pulling zeros out of hats....
runelord37 2 months ago 2
So I am going to run a business even if I have no consumers for my products? You can open a swin suits in the Soth Pole and see how it goes.
shitaye12 3 months ago
you are right but if we lower taxes then government would have to live within their means and we already know that politicians cannot control themselves it is human nature. this mess could easily be predicted and there is no end in sight.
davidmaren2000 3 months ago