Conversations with Great Minds with Dean Baker, Part 2

[Salvysahagun]

Digging the hole fallacy? Are you kidding me? I WOULD LOVE TO EAT HARTMAN ALIVE!!!!!

Are you kidding me?

Not enough demand? 70% of the US Economy is consumption.

fuck!

[lisabob22]

@Salvysahagun I would love to see you debate Hartman in a public forum. You don't even understand what demand and supply is.

[Salvysahagun]

@lisabob22

Demand is a function of bidding. Bidding drives up prices.

When you increase demand all you do is create higher prices.

Supply will create its own demand

"its the consumers job to know what they want"- Steve Jobs (on multiple occasions)

Production comes first. even FDR knew that.

[lisabob22]

@Salvysahagun demand has nothing to do with "bidding" The economy works best when Supply = Demand, when supply increases, demand should also increase. Pretty simple stuff, if supply increases and demand doesn't what happens? You get consumer debt and government deficits. That is why our economy worked better from 1947 to 1980, the "golden years" of America's middle class. Go to Ravi Batra.com he explains it well, and makes it easy to follow

[Salvysahagun]

@lisabob22

Demand is bidding, why do gas and airline prices go up during vacation time?

The 1970s where the worst economic decade since the 1930s. The golden age ended in 1972. and since then Economic growth = inflation.

The idea that consumer's drive the economy is the reason where in this mess right now.

You can't measure consumption or demand but you can measure production.

If you over produce the prices will go down thus creating new demand.

[lisabob22]

@Salvysahagun here is a clue for you: Supply is basically the production and services in an economy. Wages are basically demand. That is why it doesn't matter what % consumption is. We want demand and supply to be equal. Which is why demand increases with more employment and /or higher wages..........

[Salvysahagun]

@lisabob22

2/3 of Americans work in the consumer sector. Before 1981 most people worked in industry. You can thank Paul Volcker for that.

Wages are demand but wages come from jobs and jobs come from production.

If everyone works in a consumer economy then you'll need a bubble to keep it up.

Their are 4 popular theroy's to get out a depression, only one works

vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv­vvvvv

/watch?v=bIbbYRgNmrE&feature=r­elated

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^­^^^^^^^^^^

[BriansVideoHobby]

The average Federal employee earns over $127,000 a year in salary and benefits. We are spending over a trillion in debt every year. Does this make sense? California won't be there next year and the economically conservative states will be left to bail them out! TELL YOUR CONGRESS, NO BAILOUT FOR SOCIALIST STATES!

[hergs]

@BriansVideoHobby You have exaggerated a false number put out by the CATO Institute. They included "benefits" being paid to retirees (read: pensions that people have paid into). So they're taking all benefits paid to all CURRENT and FORMER employees, and dividing by only the CURRENT employees. MATH FAIL.

Also, in terms of education level and profession performed, private and public sector are very close to equal. I don't know why you thought this crap would fly on a Big Picture video, nice try.

[BriansVideoHobby]

@hergs You DON'T read "benefits that people have paid into". For every dollar a Federal employee contributes the tax payer has to pony up FOURTEEN. I pay for my retirement AND the vast majority of theirs. Of course, nether their pension nor my social security money actually exist because the feds have blown all of it. Even the MOST conservative estimates put Federal workers at $40-$50 K above their civilian counterparts in apple to apple comparisons. The education level and....

[BriansVideoHobby]

@BriansVideoHobby ... "profession" argument is ridiculous. By that standard, Bill Gates is an uneducated laborer. They don't count the self employed entrepreneur as a manager! Leave it to a pro-union liberal to judge a person's worth by how long they stayed out of the workforce reading books instead of what they have achieved.

[hergs]

@BriansVideoHobby Any public vs private pay gap, real or imagined, is not the result of overpayment to public employees. Wages for working people in the private sector have remained flat for 30 years while productivity has risen substantially. So instead of RAISING the wages of the private sector to meet those of the public sector, you're advocating a RACE TO THE BOTTOM!? You are openly advocating for the dismantlement of the middle class. American Dream? You will get an American Nightmare.

[BriansVideoHobby]

@hergs It's not a race to the bottom. It's a race to reality and sustainability. You aren't owed a middle income lifestyle, you earn it. The middle class has been dismantled by Clinton's sub-prime mortgage fiasco and his deregulation of derivatives and credit default swaps. It's time to live within our means, wherever that may land us. We can't keep running trillion dollar, I mean RMB, deficits. Demanding an non-viable level of income is going to collapse our economy. You don't see that?

[hergs]

@BriansVideoHobby 40¢ of every dollar we deficit spend is defense spending. So let's start there, instead of undercutting the economy by destroying demand, huh?

Clinton's (more accurately Phil Gramm's) deregulation does take a large part of the blame, you won't get an argument from me there. Most problems with public employee pension programs have been caused by that as well. It's not that they are unsustainable, THEY GOT SCREWED BY WALL STREET TOO!

[BriansVideoHobby]

@hergs I'm with ya. We need to end the wars, pull most of our troops from around America back and downsize. However, that alone won't get us anywhere near a spending level that is sustainable. We need to draw the government back to infrastructural and defense spending only and give the states and people their power and rights back so they can live up to their own responsibilities.

[BriansVideoHobby]

Oh, and Gramm had NOTHING to do with the deregulation of derivatives or credit default swaps. It's a common liberal myth. Gramm's legislation allowed banks to diversify, that's it. That diversification actually helped stabilize the banks during the Clinton conceived and imposed mortgage crises. Unfortunately, Clinton put a caveat on that diversification and that was the CRA rating. Banks were forced to give away sub-prime loans in order to expand, buy, sell, or open new branches.

[hergs]

@BriansVideoHobby I wasn't even talking about Gramm-Leach-Bliley, which actually DID have a lot to do with the financial collapse.

Gramm nearly blocked the CFMA from passing the Senate. Not because he didn't like the bill, but because he thought it didn't deregulate derivatives enough! He wanted the SEC to have ZERO oversight on swaps, and even less CFTC control on all derivatives. "Common liberal myth..." fucking incredible. You really should stop taking everything Sean Hannity says as fact.

[BriansVideoHobby]

@hergs Gramm-Leach-Bliley had NOTHING to do with the collapse. It IS a common liberal myth.  Please point out which part of Gramm-Leach-Bliley contributed to the collapse.

[hergs]

@BriansVideoHobby GLB dissolved the Glass-Steagall wall between low-risk commercial banks and high-risk investment banks. It allowed banks to merge with investment houses and use depositors money to gamble in derivatives and swaps that CFMA deregulated. IT HAD EVERYTHING TO DO WITH THE COLLAPSE!

For the love of god, read "Griftopia" or "All The Devils Are Here."

Or stay ignorant and keep calling it a "liberal myth." Your choice.

[Salvysahagun]

@hergs

Everyone screaming about Glass steagal...

Its not responsible for this crisis, right wingers are right it was caused by government lending

Glass Steagal is causing the next crash... the MUCH bigger one.

[lisabob22]

@Salvysahagun no matter that the facts prove you completely wrong, only bs spin backs up your uneducated opinion. FTFM!!

[hergs]

@BriansVideoHobby Even the Austrian School economists agree with me:

mises[dot]org/daily/3098

[hergs]

... and others: politi[dot]co/MyS9U

[hergs]

@BriansVideoHobby NOT TO MENTION Phil Gramm's wife Wendy Gramm was the former head of the CFTC, and cast the deciding vote on the deregulations in sections 2(g) and 2(h) of the CFMA, the so-called "Enron Loophole." And of course, afterwards, she went to work for Enron. Talk about corruption. And you actually defended Gramm's legislation. You realize he went to work for UBS after he did their dirty work in Congress, right? What other corrupt politicians do you want to defend?

[BriansVideoHobby]

@hergs I'm not "defending Gramm". I'm pointing out the facts. GLB had NOTHING to do with the collapse. Clinton and the treasury pushed VERY hard for the deregulation of derivatives and credit default swaps which had EVERYTHING to do with the collapse. One Senator is meaningless.

[hergs]

@BriansVideoHobby Most economists disagree with you, even the far-right corporatist laissez-faire economists. And you did defend Gramm's legislation. GLB and CFMA went hand in hand creating the conditions perfect for a bubble.

You defended GLB because it allowed banks to "diversify." Yes, allowed them to diversify their depositors money into credit default swaps and adjustable-rate mortgage-backed securities. Golly, might that have something to do with the 339 bank failures since 2007?

[hergs]

@BriansVideoHobby The US Office of Personnel Management found in 2009 that Federal Employees are paid 21.3% less than private sector counterparts in an apples-to-apples comparison. That increased to 24% in 2010.

Now there is a FACT that you can SOURCE. So far I haven't received any FACTS from you, just anti-union anti-progress teabagger bloviating.

[BriansVideoHobby]

@hergs Which is of course complete nonsense. They left out all the juicy perks like mostly tax payer funded pensions ($1 contributed matched by $14 tax payer), health insurance, life insurance, paid holidays, and paid vacations. When you compare salaries AND benefits, well, there is no comparison.

[hergs]

@BriansVideoHobby What's your source for $1-$14 matching? I call bullshit. And again, these are benefits that private sector employees used to enjoy too, before Reagan (and every president since) went after unions. So your argument for taking these things away is that the private sector got screwed, so we should screw the public sector as well... brilliant!

[BriansVideoHobby]

@hergs Federal Employees’ Retirement System Act of 1986.  Read up.

Private sector pensions failed because the companies were forced by unions to over promise, plain and simple. A company has to be competitive and it can't be if unions demand lavish perks and salaries. Ever notice that when major companies fail, they are almost always unionized? Reagan is the one who GAVE the federal unions the $14 to $1 match. Stop listening to fools and do your own research.

[hergs]

@BriansVideoHobby Apparently you are the one who has been listening to fools and not doing your own research. The TSP under FERS matches $1 to $1, and only up to 5% of base salary. Stop listening to right-wing lies. FERS was designed to mirror private sector benefit plans at the time. What is so despicable is that private sector has fallen so short of where it once was.

You have still cited no specific $14 to $1 match, so either tell me where it's hiding, or STFU.