The economy grew last quarter

[Patton3]

No, this isn't an opportunity to point and sneer at people who doubted/doubt Obama. Merely I pose a question: What do you think caused the economy to grow?
And to be perfectly clear about what I'm getting at, do you think it recovered naturally, or do you think it was due to some action(s) by the current or previous administration... or something else entirely? Perhaps you think this is just a brief spurt of growth, and that it will go down next quarter, or something along those lines.
Discuss.

[Memorize]

As stated before and by the Government...

The economy grew because the Government spent Trillions of dollars backing cars, homes, and banks.

ie. Unless the Government can spend this amount of money every year on a timely manner... then our growth doesn't mean anything.

[POOPIES]

At 11/1/09 04:45 PM, Memorize wrote: ie. Unless the Government can spend this amount of money every year on a timely manner... then our growth doesn't mean anything.

Not at all true. They didn't call it "stimulus" for nothing. The economy is like popeye and his spinach -- he gets temporarily bigger in order to surmount a particular physical challenge, and then is able to proceed normally, without the disproportionately large muscles.

[ImaSmartass2]

At 11/1/09 05:14 PM, POOPIES wrote:

At 11/1/09 04:45 PM, Memorize wrote: ie. Unless the Government can spend this amount of money every year on a timely manner... then our growth doesn't mean anything.

The economy is like popeye and his spinach

This simile just made my day. I agree, I think that they stimulus act like medicine to an ill market. You don't need to keep giving medicine after the sickness has been cured.

[ViZi]

I do believe that certain actions such as feeding money to manufacturers did help to stimulate the economy. But I also agree that the government will soon run out of money and will no longer be able to continually do this. Should Obama stop giving money to manufacturers, I think that the economy will run steadily for a short amount of time and possibly be able to keep a stable economy.

[SadisticMonkey]

At 11/1/09 05:14 PM, POOPIES wrote:

Not at all true. They didn't call it "stimulus" for nothing. The economy is like popeye and his spinach -- he gets temporarily bigger in order to surmount a particular physical challenge, and then is able to proceed normally, without the disproportionately large muscles.

so you're saying that without spinach (huge government spending) there won't be any "disproportionately large muscles" (economic growth) ??

Which is what mez was saying??

[X-Gary-Gigax-X]

How the heck did that happen? We still remain on the brink of 10% unemployment.

[TDwizBang]

i like to watch the US dollar index and from what i see is that the worth of the dollar keeps falling while the price of big name stocks keeps rising... it also seems like when the dollar starts to take a nose dive big stocks fall while people pump money into the US dollar index... also since the US dollar index is traded on several markets inflation hits instantly... if the Dow Jones industrial average is at 1000.00 with the US dollar index at 85.00 it is worth WAY more than if the US dollar index is at 76.00...

also banks are closing left and right, California is starving, and more and more jobs are lost each day but we are told we are starting a recovery based on one quarter of a whole year...

new unemployment figures come out usually the first friday of the month... but keep in mind the figure given is based on how many people claim unemployment... and excludes those who have ran out the full term you can collect unemployment and those who dont have a mailbox (unless enrolled at some help center or shelter) its also good to keep in mind that seasonal help is considered new job creation and usually dosnt employ a person long enough to collect unemployment (i think you need to be working for six months?)

[POOPIES]

At 11/1/09 07:17 PM, SadisticMonkey wrote: so you're saying that without spinach (huge government spending) there won't be any "disproportionately large muscles" (economic growth) ??

Which is what mez was saying??

What Memorize was saying is that we grow dependent on the Gov't spending once we start. However, the stimulus package was created to be a temporary boost -- a "spinach" so to speak, that allows us to surmount the challenge of low consumer confidence and aggregate demand, and which will cancel out these problems and cause the dynamo of the American economy to start up, at which point it will become self-sustaining until the next recession, in however many years or decades that may be.

[Memorize]

At 11/2/09 12:22 AM, POOPIES wrote:

What Memorize was saying is that we grow dependent on the Gov't spending once we start. However, the stimulus package was created to be a temporary boost -- a "spinach" so to speak, that allows us to surmount the challenge of low consumer confidence and aggregate demand, and which will cancel out these problems and cause the dynamo of the American economy to start up, at which point it will become self-sustaining until the next recession, in however many years or decades that may be.

So... you're saying people should be taking out more loans and spending their money during a severe economic downturn while people are losing their jobs.

So you're saying this "temporary boost" was worth the bankers being bailed out, going into Trillions more in debt, and higher inflation...

Love the logic. How to cure a problem of too much spending and debt? Spend more and go into more debt!

[Memorize]

It amazes me how there are still people who think spending an outrageous amount of money can solve every problem, even after Bush doubled the national debt.

[awkward-silence]

At 11/2/09 03:04 AM, Memorize wrote: It amazes me how there are still people who think spending an outrageous amount of money can solve every problem, even after Bush doubled the national debt.

Its not as black and white as "spending money" to fix the economy. It is what you spend it on that is important. The government didn't need to fund the hoover dam, but it was a very solid investment, selling that electricity has more than paid for the project.

Right now the bill proposed by the house is estimated to actually save $104B by the end of ten years and opens the door to excercise, what will be redundant health care tax credits, from our books. These credits in question are running $250B/year, thus making the potential 10 year savings $2.6T. Holy Shit!

When Bush doubled the debt, he did it to turn Iraq into a glass crater. No savings, nothing of valie left afterward. Just glass and a region of people who hate us even more than they already did. Difference.

[awkward-silence]

At 11/2/09 03:02 AM, Memorize wrote: So... you're saying people should be taking out more loans and spending their money during a severe economic downturn while people are losing their jobs.

Technically that woud be the easiest way out of a recesssion, but people have their own interests in mind. And rightly so. But fear tends to take recessions and make them depressions.

So you're saying this "temporary boost" was worth the bankers being bailed out, going into Trillions more in debt, and higher inflation...

Many banks have already paid the money back plus interest. The government made a cool 23% on its loan to Goldman Sachs. And The dollar is actually worth more now than it was before the bubble burst, according toe the CPI released by the bureau of Labor and Statistics. Its also trades higher against the Euro and GPB than it did in March 2008. So your Inflations, at this moment, is completely imaginary.

Love the logic. How to cure a problem of too much spending and debt? Spend more and go into more debt!

Take an economics class.

[drDAK]

At 11/1/09 04:45 PM, Memorize wrote: As stated before and by the Government...

The economy grew because the Government spent Trillions of dollars backing cars, homes, and banks.

ie. Unless the Government can spend this amount of money every year on a timely manner... then our growth doesn't mean anything.

That sounds like an argument against all government spending.

[Memorize]

At 11/2/09 03:10 AM, awkward-silence wrote:

Its not as black and white as "spending money" to fix the economy.

Yeah it is.

It is what you spend it on that is important.

Yeah, that's why FDR's efforts to get us out of the Great Depression was a marvelous success... oh wait! He had 13 years to do it and failed! The economy didn't pick back up until after his death when Truman actually decided to liquidate the bad assets!

The government didn't need to fund the hoover dam, but it was a very solid investment, selling that electricity has more than paid for the project.

How many people died as a result?

Right now the bill proposed by the house is estimated to actually save $104B

LOL!

by the end of ten years and opens the door to excercise, what will be redundant health care tax credits, from our books. These credits in question are running $250B/year, thus making the potential 10 year savings $2.6T. Holy Shit!

It make more sense if everything the Government touched wasn't broke.

It would also make more sense if Bush didn't do the exact same thing and didn't use the exact same argument.

I seem to recall him saying we would cover the cost of expanding medicare with "savings". But... oops, the cost went from $400 Billion to $1.2 Trillion.

Bush also passed a hundred billion dollar stimulus package in 2008. Why? To "curb a recession". IT even gave a bounce in GDP #.

Question: Did it work?

When Bush doubled the debt, he did it to turn Iraq into a glass crater.

Iraq doesn't even cover up to a 1/4 of the total amount of debt he accumulated.

No savings, nothing of valie left afterward. Just glass and a region of people who hate us even more than they already did. Difference.

Right, because going from $5 Trillion accumulated debt to $10 Trillion accumulated debt is a fantastic idea.

Here's another question: If the Government can perpetually grow the economy through spending, then why doesn't the Government hire everyone for every job and spend more money?

If increasing the minimum wage is great for the economy, then why don't we increase it to $40 an hour, $50 an hour. Hell, why not make it $100 an hour?

Keynesian morons.

[Elfer]

The correct way to fix the economy would be to attempt to consume according to production. When you consume beyond production, you're just creating an inflationary gap that will eventually slam you back into a recession.

Of course, the REAL way to fix the economy is to stop ignoring factors like the environment and stop trying to drive the economy through consumption in general.

[reverend]

At 11/1/09 11:10 AM, Patton3 wrote: . . . Merely I pose a question: What do you think caused the economy to grow?

You know the BEA, Bureau of Economic Analysis, will often state what causes changes in GDP when they release their data (of course the 3.5% increase is very preliminary, the final numbers for 3rd quarter comes months from now)

"The increase in real GDP in the third quarter primarily reflected positive contributions from personal consumption expenditures (PCE), exports, private inventory investment, federal government spending, and residential fixed investment. Imports, which are a subtraction in the calculation of GDP, increased."

"Motor vehicle output added 1.66 percentage points to the third-quarter change in real GDP after adding 0.19 percentage point to the second-quarter change. Final sales of computers subtracted 0.11 percentage point from the third-quarter change in real GDP after subtracting 0.04 percentage point from the second-quarter change."

Source: BEA

And to be perfectly clear about what I'm getting at, do you think it recovered naturally, or do you think it was due to some action(s) by the current or previous administration... or something else entirely? Perhaps you think this is just a brief spurt of growth, and that it will go down next quarter, or something along those lines.

By what they say, think it was half and half. Some growth was caused naturally and some caused by government spending. Of course the real true test of whether the economy is growing would be in the fourth quarter with all the holiday spending.

At 11/1/09 05:14 PM, POOPIES wrote: . . . The economy is like popeye and his spinach -- he gets temporarily bigger in order to surmount a particular physical challenge, and then is able to proceed normally, without the disproportionately large muscles.

Ah yes, the Popeye Index. :P

At 11/2/09 12:00 PM, Memorize wrote: Here's another question: If the Government can perpetually grow the economy through spending, then why doesn't the Government hire everyone for every job and spend more money?

Inflationary concerns for one.
What they are trying to say is that an temporary increase in government spending is ok in the short run (of course everyone knows that fiscal policy has no affect in the long run). That's all the government is trying to do really; keep from business from failing at the moment and to help them back on their feet.

When the government spends money in the economy the affect of it multiplied out, but right now business are not really speeding the money that they receive. Once consumer confidence perks up it should all get better.

If increasing the minimum wage is great for the economy, then why don't we increase it to $40 an hour, $50 an hour. Hell, why not make it $100 an hour?

Who said that? Usually the labor market is the same as any other market and you pay a person according to how much they are in demand.

At 11/2/09 12:32 PM, Elfer wrote: Of course, the REAL way to fix the economy is to stop ignoring factors like the environment and stop trying to drive the economy through consumption in general.

I don't think there is any other way to drive an economy. Consumption makes up about 70 percent of GDP in the US economy.

[awkward-silence]

At 11/2/09 12:00 PM, Memorize wrote:

At 11/2/09 03:10 AM, awkward-silence wrote:

Yeah, that's why FDR's efforts to get us out of the Great Depression was a marvelous success... oh wait! He had 13 years to do it and failed! The economy didn't pick back up until after his death when Truman actually decided to liquidate the bad assets!

That's a lie and you know it. Everytime we go over this I show you stats and statistics and you still spout the same BS.

How many people died as a result?

Roughly 1/220th of when as in the building of the first stage on the Panama canal. And twice as many as the brooklyn bridge (that little thing.) What's your point? Large constructions often have high death tolls, especially back in the days of the three martini lunch. The project was a wonderful investment, not only paying for itself in electricity sold but also in tax revenue from allowing Las Vegas to become the global spectical that it is.

Right now the bill proposed by the house is estimated to actually save $104B

LOL!

Lol-o-rang Bloomberg style

It make more sense if everything the Government touched wasn't broke.

Everything the government touches isn't broke, but that blanket statement is.

It would also make more sense if Bush didn't do the exact same thing and didn't use the exact same argument.

Actually no. Bush never recommended a public option, or demand regulation prohibiting insurance companies from excluding based on pre-existing conditions, raising rates after illess and cancelling coverage for reasons other than insuree not fulfilling their end of the contract. So I guess it makes sense now...

Bush also passed a hundred billion dollar stimulus package in 2008. Why? To "curb a recession". IT even gave a bounce in GDP #.

Not according the kind folks over at the Bureau of Economic Analysis. They say you are lying.

Question: Did it work?

It kept many financial firms from going under and removing the lending institutions large enough to keep those that keep americans employed a means of getting funds. So yes. Additionally, since many of the banks have already paid back ( or started to) it looks as though the gov. may even turn a profit on that. So yes.

When Bush doubled the debt, he did it to turn Iraq into a glass crater.

Iraq doesn't even cover up to a 1/4 of the total amount of debt he accumulated.

Prior to the stimulus spending bush had raised the debt approx. $3.5 T and $2.2 T of that can be traced to military expenditure.

Your arguments are all over the place. It makes it hard to follow to be honest.

Here's another question: If the Government can perpetually grow the economy through spending, then why doesn't the Government hire everyone for every job and spend more money?

I've said this before, The government can't do everything efficiently, and neither can a free market. Strong social programming is a cost effective means of raising the overal standard of living for the nation as a whole, and protecting the populace when the system is sicks. But A strong market is also needed, one driven by capital exchange in which new ideas are incoraged to flurish is also needed. The two act as hands washing each other. There is a balance.

If increasing the minimum wage is great for the economy, then why don't we increase it to $40 an hour, $50 an hour. Hell, why not make it $100 an hour?

Did you read Glenn Beck's book, Arguing like an idiot? You are making superbly weak straw man arguments tonight. Usually your thoughts are at least coherently tied together and somewhat grounded in reality. But not this time.

[Memorize]

At 11/2/09 08:01 PM, awkward-silence wrote:

That's a lie and you know it. Everytime we go over this I show you stats and statistics and you still spout the same BS.

Really?

When the recession start? 1929.

When did it "officially" end (according to the Government)? World War II

When did it really end? At the end of the war.

So you have two choices. Either the war fixed the economy (by throwing unemployed people in the military and industry producing war-time products), or it was fixed because the bad assets were liquidated (after FDR's death).

In both instances: FDR didn't do shit.

And the reason why the "war" argument doesn't mean anything is because it's just another Government excuse for their spending.

It's the same lame excuse of "unemployment is a lagging indicator". Bullshit, the economy isn't really recovered until jobs are stabilized. Otherwise, Economic growth doesn't mean squat.

But you tell me. Do you support the Federal Government taxing people 97% of their income?

Roughly 1/220th of when as in the building of the first stage on the Panama canal. And twice as many as the brooklyn bridge (that little thing.) What's your point?

The irony is all.

Lol-o-rang Bloomberg style

The fact that you believe it is truly laughable.

Everything the government touches isn't broke

No, just 90% of it.

Actually no. Bush never recommended a public option,

Right, because expanding medicare coverage where prices are fixed is NOTHING like what Bush did.

or demand regulation prohibiting insurance companies from excluding based on pre-existing conditions, raising rates after illess and cancelling coverage for reasons other than insuree not fulfilling their end of the contract. So I guess it makes sense now...

Now that's what's really funny.

You bitch about denying coverage and demand they accept people with pre-existing conditions. Then you turn around and bitch about the rising prices.

You can't have it both ways. If you force insurance companies to accept people with pre-existing conditions then people won't bother getting insurance until AFTER they're diagnosed. Meaning they won't be paying into a pool until the very moment they receive the medical attention.

Guess what that would do to premiums?

Not according the kind folks over at the Bureau of Economic Analysis. They say you are lying.

And by "bounce" I mean: "It would've been worse had the Government not done anything".

Hey! That sounds familiar too!

It kept many financial firms from going under and removing the lending institutions large enough to keep those that keep americans employed a means of getting funds. So yes. Additionally, since many of the banks have already paid back ( or started to) it looks as though the gov. may even turn a profit on that. So yes.

Ie. We kept the rich, corporate bankers and business men who fucked up, keep running the show!

Prior to the stimulus spending bush had raised the debt approx. $3.5 T and $2.2 T of that can be traced to military expenditure.

I like how you lumped in Iraq and Afghanistan with overall military expenditure.

Dumbass

Btw, that's $1 Trillion spent on both Iraq and Afghanistan combined, making the money spend on Iraq less than $1 Trillion, therefore...

I win.

I've said this before, The government can't do everything efficiently, and neither can a free market.

Even though the panics of the 1800's were caused by the National Banks and bicentennialism.
Even though the Depression and recessions of the 1900's were caused by Government; more specifically the spending habits of the federal reserve.

Even though our current "depression" was the result of our Government and Federal Reserve greatly lowering interest rates, propping up housing prices, lowering lending standards, leaning on private banks to follow suit and telling them that if "anything bad happens, we'll help you out".

Yeah, our Government has been doing a wonderful job.

Strong social programming is a cost effective means of raising the overal standard of living for the nation as a whole, and protecting the populace when the system is sicks. But A strong market is also needed, one driven by capital exchange in which new ideas are incoraged to flurish is also needed. The two act as hands washing each other. There is a balance.

Our dollar today had lost 96% of it's value from 1913. No fiat currency has ever lasted the test of time.

Inflation ftw! What a balance.

Did you read Glenn Beck's book, Arguing like an idiot? You are making superbly weak straw man arguments tonight. Usually your thoughts are at least coherently tied together and somewhat grounded in reality. But not this time.

Glenn Beck?

The hell is wrong is you?

[fli]

At 11/1/09 08:29 PM, X-Gary-Gigax-X wrote: How the heck did that happen? We still remain on the brink of 10% unemployment.

It's receding, slowly but it is.

I think it will take a whole lot more time.
After all... how long he has been in office?

He got elected one year today.

which reminds me... it's also my anniversary today too. Though, celebration don't start until the weekend.

but, anyway...

[Korriken]

At 11/3/09 02:06 AM, fli wrote:

It's receding, slowly but it is.

after christmas, i predict the unemployment numbers to jump again once the retailers get in their numbers and see the holiday season's sales were abysmal. It'll be largely retail store shedding employees to make up for lost revenue and smaller stores that are barely clinging to life, hoping for a decent holiday season, shutting down. Also banks are continuing to fail and sink, and the FDIC is broke. don't be too surprised tf you hear of small time stores in your area shutting down because the bank they keep their money at went under and the FDIC was taking too long to get them their money.

oh yeah, the stock market is also gonna tumble in January.

I think it will take a whole lot more time.
After all... how long he has been in office?

He got elected one year today.

Not sure what this has to do with much. In the year he's been in office, his speeches and policies have scared the hell out of businessmen all over the nation, also, his tax hikes and proposed tax hikes on everyone is slowing the already slow economy down even worse, not to mention the crushing effect of cap and trade if it gets passed, along with the wave of inflation from printing up piles of money, which I consider to be a phantom tax on everyone. as they devalue our currency, what you have is worth less and less, they're basically siphoning the value of what they have into their own pockets by printing billions upon billions of dollars in paper money.

[awkward-silence]

At 11/3/09 01:46 AM, Memorize wrote:

At 11/2/09 08:01 PM, awkward-silence wrote:

When did it really end? At the end of the war.

You mean, when did it really end in your opinion so that you can make an absurd, absolutely.
Before the the war America had recovered it GDP from before the depression, Recovered its stock market (considering the dollar was worth A lot more [CPI 1929 :17.3 ; CPI 1940:13.3]) the real value of stock market way ahead. In 4 years unemployemnt dropped 10%. The only ugly stat you have, is when treasury sec. raised taxes and pressured FDR to reduce spending prematurely and a lot of the works programs will cancelled by the supreme court, unemployment rose again, but didn't come close to what it was.

The reason Truman liquidated those assets, was because the economy was healthy again, and that is what you are supposed to do.

And the reason why the "war" argument doesn't mean anything is because it's just another Government excuse for their spending.

Actually it was British investment in American weaponry that really got it started.

It's the same lame excuse of "unemployment is a lagging indicator". Bullshit, the economy isn't really recovered until jobs are stabilized. Otherwise, Economic growth doesn't mean squat.

Its REALLY simple. You expand to meet growing demand. Therefore you must first have growing demand. This is fundamental economics,

But you tell me. Do you support the Federal Government taxing people 91% of their income?

[fixed, no one was ever taxed 97%]

When after tax they still make amounts of money not matched until Bill Gates. yes. But that didn't actually occur until the final year of WW2, when FDR was dead.

The fact that you believe it is truly laughable.

Why wouldn't I believe the CBO. We waste a lot of money right now. And there are ways to streamline.

No, just 90% of it.

Yep, you got me there you tunnel visioned, cynical, twit.

Right, because expanding medicare coverage where prices are fixed is NOTHING like what Bush did.

Prices aren't fixed under the house Bill. The government once again has the ability to negotiate prices.
So it is nothing like Bush. All you see is "expand coverage" and assume the rest is the same. Its not every facet of the bill is different.

You can't have it both ways. If you force insurance companies to accept people with pre-existing conditions then people won't bother getting insurance until AFTER they're diagnosed.

That argument is not even likely in the bill.

And by "bounce" I mean: "It would've been worse had the Government not done anything".

Well that much is true.

Ie. We kept the rich, corporate bankers and business men who fucked up, keep running the show!

I.e. we kept money available to firms who needed it (manufacturing, construction, restaraunts) by allowing their source for capital in operation.

I like how you lumped in Iraq and Afghanistan with overall military expenditure.

I didn't. Source: Center for Defense Information

And I'm sorry I generalized involvement in the middle east to "Iraq"

Even though the Depression and recessions of the 1900's were caused by Government; more specifically the spending habits of the federal reserve.

Fiction

Even though our current "depression" was the result of our Government and Federal Reserve greatly lowering interest rates, propping up housing prices, lowering lending standards,

The big piece of that pie is lowerin lending standards. Reducing oversight in the market, while keeping interest rates artificially low. That is everything in a nutshell. Too mistakes. You can't have government involvment in artificially lowering interest rates and then turn around and reduce oversight to help a "free market". That was the work going on under bush. Obama and the people working with him act under different rules. The economists he talks to and plans with are nobel prize winning, world renowned economists. And he is one in favor of reinstating oversight.

Yeah, our Government has been doing a wonderful job.

The last 8 years it hadn' and you wont get an argument from me.

Our dollar today had lost 96% of it's value from 1913. No fiat currency has ever lasted the test of time.

And the average income is up 4,000% we are still ahead, no?

[Memorize]

At 11/3/09 07:01 AM, awkward-silence wrote:

You mean, when did it really end in your opinion so that you can make an absurd, absolutely.

So you're saying the solution to our economic downturn is to take almost 100% of people's income while forcing people into war?

Before the the war America had recovered it GDP from before the depression,

GDP means nothing when people are still unemployed and the only amount of growth is attributed to Government spending.

So as I've asked before.

What's the point of a 3.5% economic growth when the "real" unemployment rate is close to 20%?

Recovered its stock market (considering the dollar was worth A lot more [CPI 1929 :17.3 ; CPI 1940:13.3]) the real value of stock market way ahead.

Like our stock market, which it's "real" value accounting for the inflation from last year to today is really only up to 8000 rather than 10k.

The only reason why it is 10k is because of the printing money propping up the numbers.

In 4 years unemployemnt dropped 10%.

No.

The only time unemployment dropped significantly was in 1937 when it hit 14.3%, but then by the very next year it rose back up to 19%. He's been in office then for 5-6 years by this point...

How could anyone in their right mind say what he did worked? He's failed after almost 6 years (by today's standards he only has two years left).

The only time it when down below 10% was in 1941, but that was solely because because we entered a war-time economy and forced unemployed people into the military and counted them as "employed".

The only ugly stat you have, is when treasury sec. raised taxes and pressured FDR to reduce spending prematurely

Oh great.

The good, old, bullshit excuse of "We didn't spend enough". Is there ever an amount of money a nation can spend before that excuse wears out?

Even during his entering office until war-time, economic growth was still below trend.

and a lot of the works programs will cancelled by the supreme court, unemployment rose again, but didn't come close to what it was.

Excuses excuses.

The reason Truman liquidated those assets, was because the economy was healthy again, and that is what you are supposed to do.

The economy was only healthy again because he liquidated the assets.

If what you say is true, then why is it that when we entered a depression in 1920 that was worse than the stock market crash of 1921, and we immediately liquidated the assets... why did that only last a little less than 1 year?

If liquidating the assets meant nothing and Government spending and programs meant results, then why did cutting the deficit by 1/3, lowering people's taxes, and reducing Government spending by 1/2 produce better than much faster recovery/results than ALL the YEARS of Hoover and FDR?

Actually it was British investment in American weaponry that really got it started.

Funny how that doesn't change what I said.

Its REALLY simple. You expand to meet growing demand. Therefore you must first have growing demand. This is fundamental economics,

A politician's excuse to avoid blame and keep spending.

[fixed, no one was ever taxed 97%]

Pardon me for still being in the 90's.

When after tax they still make amounts of money not matched until Bill Gates. yes. But that didn't actually occur until the final year of WW2, when FDR was dead.

Tax rates by year (scroll down a bit).

FDR was president in 1944.

Tax rate in 1944: 94%

Why wouldn't I believe the CBO. We waste a lot of money right now. And there are ways to streamline.

The CBO would be right if the Government were at all capable of doing anything properly and efficiently.

"Might be" right.

Yep, you got me there you tunnel visioned, cynical, twit.

Defend it.

Say right now that you think it would be a good idea to tax people 94% of their income during a borderline depression.

Prices aren't fixed under the house Bill. The government once again has the ability to negotiate prices.

Right, because that's worked out so well...

But wait a minute... if the Government can negotiate prices while the insurance agencies are able to lobby for Billions while having the politicians in their back pockets...

So it is nothing like Bush.

It's EXACTLY like Bush.

You explain to me why the Drug Industry is spending hundreds of millions in ads promoting Obama's "vision".

All you see is "expand coverage" and assume the rest is the same. Its not every facet of the bill is different.

No, it's just an expansion of Bush's proposal.

You can't have it both ways. If you force insurance companies to accept people with pre-existing conditions then people won't bother getting insurance until AFTER they're diagnosed.

That argument is not even likely in the bill.

And by "bounce" I mean: "It would've been worse had the Government not done anything".

Well that much is true.

I like how you just completely skipped over the part where I call you an idiot for bitching about the price of healthcare while demanding pre-existing conditions be accepted.

I.e. we kept money available to firms who needed it (manufacturing, construction, restaraunts) by allowing their source for capital in operation.

It's only temporary.

You gave them borrowed and printed money.

The only way these can keep going is if you continuous borrow and print money.

But that leads to inflation, which benefits the rich while wiping out the middle class while the gap between rich and poor increase.

I bet those bankers just love you.

Even though the Depression and recessions of the 1900's were caused by Government; more specifically the spending habits of the federal reserve.

Fiction

Yeah, the Federal Reserve expanding the monetary supply by 60% during the 1920's had NOTHING to do with the crash of '29.

The big piece of that pie is lowerin lending standards. Reducing oversight in the market, while keeping interest rates artificially low. That is everything in a nutshell.

And yet ALL caused by the Government.

Since it was the Government and their banks who lowered lending standards. And it was the Government who told private banks to do the same while telling them they would be "bailed out should anything happen."

Too mistakes. You can't have government involvment in artificially lowering interest rates and then turn around and reduce oversight to help a "free market". That was the work going on under bush. Obama and the people working with him act under different rules.

Is that why Obama and McCain are ranked Second and Third in most political contributions from banks of any congressman?

Is that why they BOTH voted in favor of giving Bush the money to bail out wallstreet?

Yeah, our Government has been doing a wonderful job.

The last 8 years it hadn' and you wont get an argument from me.

Too bad it's EXACTLY the same.

And the average income is up 4,000% we are still ahead, no?

And yet the gap between rich and poor get bigger everyday while the middle class is wiped out.

Have fun with your corporate consumer based economy!

[BillyTh3Kid]

The economy didn't grow, it shrunk 10000000 billions dollars idiot.

[awkward-silence]

At 11/3/09 11:29 AM, Memorize wrote:

So you're saying the solution to our economic downturn is to take almost 100% of people's income while forcing people into war?

Must be deranged to imply anybody advocated that.

GDP means nothing when people are still unemployed and the only amount of growth is attributed to Government spending.

GDP is what Recession and growth are based on and at this moment I would like to point out that the economy grew 3.5% and gov. expenditure accounts for little more that 2%. Which means that the GDP grew more than 1% on top of what the government had done.

What's the point of a 3.5% economic growth when the "real" unemployment rate is close to 20%?

And I'll tell you again. This means that you can expect jobs to return shortly. There is always a lag because you cannot expand your operations before your demands. Because demand is exanding, jobs are on there way.

Like our stock market, which it's "real" value accounting for the inflation from last year to today is really only up to 8000 rather than 10k.

Actually to use 2008 dollars it is really $10,139. Its is $8,000 when you use 2000 dollars, but then you must realize that the peak before the burst was only $11,111

The only reason why it is 10k is because of the printing money propping up the numbers.

If that were the case the dollar would be weaker compared to pre-bubble and not stronger, which it is. The reason it is up is because financial institutions exist and we are on our way to recovery.

The only time unemployment dropped significantly was in 1937 when it hit 14.3%...

Very good, you say "no" and then show a link that proves what I just said.

Excuses excuses.

What excuses, the economy didn't sink until after the changes on 1937 were made. And in terms of nations of the world, Sweden, Norway, France, Germany, Italy, and USSR all used public works to exit the depression and all succeeded. Comparitively we did less an most of the other nations and when we reduced prematurely we contracted a bit.

The economy was only healthy again because he liquidated the assets.

GDP was much higher than it was before the depression as was the stock market. Unemployment was around 5% before he liquidated the programs. 6% is full employment; you don't need works programs when the nation is at full employment. That is why they were liquidated, they were no longer needed.

If what you say is true, then why is it that when we entered a depression in 1920... why did that only last a little less than 1 year?

Becauase in 1920 the banking system didn't collapse and neither did the housing and agricultural systems. The depression was purely wall street and there were enough other healthy systems that it could correct itself relatively quickly. Most recessions only last a little while.

Tax rate in 1944: 94%

The source I used showed taxes increasing to 91% in 1945. Regardless this is still after the depression.

Say right now that you think it would be a good idea to tax people 94% of their income during a borderline depression.

I don't because that would be absurd. FDR didn't do that either ( despite your claims) the economy had recovered and now you are talking about WW2, the time of rationing.

Right, because that's worked out so well...

You bitch about fixed prices, you bitch about the ability to negotiate. Is there anyway to make you happy?

No, it's just an expansion of Bush's proposal.

I don't know how, you clearly haven't looked at the bill.

I like how you just completely skipped over the part where I call you an idiot for bitching about the price of healthcare while demanding pre-existing conditions be accepted.

I sorry I was trying to save you a little face. You clearly don't know what the fuck you are talking about. Insurance prices are not at fair market value, it they were they wouldn't turn a profit. Expected inflow would be roughly equal to expected outflow (actually they would turn some profit because people are risk adverse, but not like they had the last 10 years). This means that prices are hyper inflated as. By allowing competition and mandating that everyone has health care the prices comes down because it needs to be affordable and there is more competition. Since people are by-and-large healthy, you have a larger pool of healthy people paying and covering the unfortunate. Its the same logic as betting the betting a lot of money that the Patriots will beat the Lions so that you can cover your other bet that the Vickings will beat the Ravens.

It's only temporary.

It only needs to be. And in fact only should be.

Yeah, the Federal Reserve expanding the monetary supply by 60% during the 1920's had NOTHING to do with the crash of '29.

Sorry, thought you meant the depression that ran from 1899-1900. The crash had a lot more to do with an unregulated market allowing the purchasing of stocks on credit flating the prices of the market 6 times over the course of a year. The value of the stock market was less that about 200% of what it was actually worth.

And yet ALL caused by the Government.

I think its funny that you blame the government when they take their hands and off and put their hands on.

Is that why they BOTH voted in favor of giving Bush the money to bail out wallstreet?

As they should have. I hate everything bush had ever done, except the bank bailout ( though I would like to have seen more stipulations attached. Paulson had too much power in my opinion.)

And yet the gap between rich and poor get bigger everyday while the middle class is wiped out.

That is baseless. THe gini is unchanged from 2 years ago. The middle class are exactly the ones that universal healtcare is going to help.

I think I'm done with this discussion. What was once intellectually stimulating and entertaining has become mindnumbing and drole. You argue points that arent points with facts come from a magical land that borders fantasy and crap and serve only to distract from the actual debate.

Your assumptions are baseless, your assertions inane, your knowledge patchwork and your ignorance irritating.

[Der-Lowe]

At 11/2/09 12:32 PM, Elfer wrote: The correct way to fix the economy would be to attempt to consume according to production. When you consume beyond production, you're just creating an inflationary gap that will eventually slam you back into a recession.

Good that none of that has happened in the developed world since WW2

Of course, the REAL way to fix the economy is to stop ignoring factors like the environment and stop trying to drive the economy through consumption in general.

I do not see how the financial crisis is related to environmental problems.
Unless there was a whole Greenpeace conspiracy I am not aware of.

[SmilezRoyale]

At 11/1/09 08:29 PM, X-Gary-Gigax-X wrote: How the heck did that happen? We still remain on the brink of 10% unemployment.

Actually our real unemployment is somewhere around seventeen percent.

__________________

The reason that people are running around saying that the economy is growing, is because they are measuring likely measuring it by. The government injected a huge amounts of stimulus money into the economy to stimulate demand. Not even the heaviest critics of the stimulus (I.E. peter schiff) can deny that pumping money into an economy is going to stimulate demand.

There are two kinds of economic growth, one kind of economic growth involves savings. Capital is accumulated which then goes to build up the factories and firms and infrastructure that is essential to maximizing our world of scarcity. Deferred consumption today leads to greater overall opportunities for consumption tomorrow. This kind of growth is like increasing the strength of one's muscles, or increasing one's height naturally.

The other kind of growth involves spending, you spend money you don't have, and say that the economy has improved because people are spending more, this is like going on a junk food binge and measuring your weight and saying 'my economy has grown' or injecting yourself with steroids and telling everyone how your physique has improved.

The second kind of growth is NOT the kind of growth that the "The United States of America" needs right now. America was experiencing a great deal of economic growth in the phony sense before the economic collapse, and the debt-consumption which was conflated with growth of yesteryear (Which i openly admit to having been an apologist for back when i was a neocon) laid the foundation for the collapse.

on another note, GDP numbers are terrible barometers of economic growth. It's entirely too easy for some tin pot dictator to spend millions on weapons and materials for the army to oppress the masses, and then report those millions in it's GDP and call it growth. Likewise if politicians hand out hundreds of billions of printing press money to politically connected allies, it doesn't mean that society as a whole is any better off.

[Der-Lowe]

At 11/8/09 08:10 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote:

At 11/1/09 08:29 PM, X-Gary-Gigax-X wrote: How the heck did that happen? We still remain on the brink of 10% unemployment.

Actually our real unemployment is somewhere around seventeen percent.

Using another U-N ?

The reason that people are running around saying that the economy is growing, is because they are measuring likely measuring it by. The government injected a huge amounts of stimulus money into the economy to stimulate demand. Not even the heaviest critics of the stimulus (I.E. peter schiff) can deny that pumping money into an economy is going to stimulate demand.

There are two kinds of economic growth, one kind of economic growth involves savings. Capital is accumulated which then goes to build up the factories and firms and infrastructure that is essential to maximizing our world of scarcity. Deferred consumption today leads to greater overall opportunities for consumption tomorrow.

A recession does not necessarily balance itself with a boom afterwards, and vice versa.
The only way in which a drop in consumption now can mean higher consumption tomorrow is if that savings are being channeled into investment. This is not the case in recessions, since businessmen get pessimistic. For example, Net investment went negative during the great depression, despite the increased investment by the decrease in consumption.

The other kind of growth involves spending, you spend money you don't have, and say that the economy has improved because people are spending more, this is like going on a junk food binge and measuring your weight and saying 'my economy has grown' or injecting yourself with steroids and telling everyone how your physique has improved.

The thing is that the money being spent exists, in the way of not realized investment. The private sector has a huge amount of funds that is currently not using (that's why NOMINAL interest rates went negative on the T-bills a year ago) , so the government uses the opportunity, and spends them. Since we're in a liquidity trap, there is no crowding-out effect: the government does not displace investment, because the deficit does not raise interest rates (which are zero).

on another note, GDP numbers are terrible barometers of economic growth. It's entirely too easy for some tin pot dictator to spend millions on weapons and materials for the army to oppress the masses, and then report those millions in it's GDP and call it growth. Likewise if politicians hand out hundreds of billions of printing press money to politically connected allies, it doesn't mean that society as a whole is any better off.

The pitfalls of GDP are more related to its accurate measuring of the level income, (or "utility"), rather than its evolution.
And even if you eliminate government expenditures, the economy still grew. We call that the multiplier effect, and it's greater than 1.
Hooray! suck that friedman.

[Elfer]

At 11/8/09 02:44 AM, Der-Lowe wrote:

At 11/2/09 12:32 PM, Elfer wrote: Of course, the REAL way to fix the economy is to stop ignoring factors like the environment and stop trying to drive the economy through consumption in general.

I do not see how the financial crisis is related to environmental problems.
Unless there was a whole Greenpeace conspiracy I am not aware of.

It's not. I'm saying that the current financial problem we're having is merely a symptom of the underlying problem, which is that the entire economic model, right down to the basic assumptions that it's based on create a fundamentally flawed system.

I'm not saying that economic theory is wrong, I'm just saying that it's all been built up around a shitty system. An economy driven primarily by greed is never going to stabilize. An economic model that doesn't take environmental or societal effects into consideration will eventually drive itself into the ground.

I'd say the main problem with the economic model is that it assumes that happiness is driven by the acquisition of consumer goods, which is complete bullshit, but hundreds of billions of dollars are spent each year trying to convince people of this to keep the economic model moving. Think about it: An economy that actually gives people what they need and allows them access to things they want should require zero resources dedicated to marketing.

[dySWN]

At 11/2/09 03:10 AM, awkward-silence wrote: Right now the bill proposed by the house is estimated to actually save $104B by the end of ten years and opens the door to excercise, what will be redundant health care tax credits, from our books. These credits in question are running $250B/year, thus making the potential 10 year savings $2.6T. Holy Shit!

[citation needed]