17 replies to this topic

[redlion]

Looks like we're sitting on a landmine, or at least we're not out of the DMZ yet. According to aBBC article US GDP growth has been on a downtick for quite some time. But when you look at that graph, you can clearly see the huge dip we had right before the change of power around '08, '09. Compared to THAT we're humming right along.

The more I read about this, the more I believe in investor confidence, a sorely underutilized measuring stick. Every time they get on the airwaves, they're playing with investor confidence. Consumer confidence. That's all. The more you are aware of it, the easier you can get out of the warpath.

Discuss.

[Jake]

Why isn't Faux News making these articles?

[redlion]

Why isn't Faux News making these articles?

Is that supposed to have something to do with what I posted?

[Jake]

Sure it does. Why aren't the US stations making their own articles, obviously BBC can grab all of the attention it wants.

[Waser Lave]

Sure it does. Why aren't the US stations making their own articles, obviously BBC can grab all of the attention it wants.

Probably because the BBC is actually pretty good at covering news.

[redlion]

Sure it does. Why aren't the US stations making their own articles, obviously BBC can grab all of the attention it wants.

I'm sure they are making their own articles. I posted a BBC article because their RSS feed is built into the Firefox Bookmarks toolbar.

Suffice it to say that, in all of what I posted, the only thing you picked out to disagree with was the source? And the BBC at that?

Probably because the BBC is actually pretty good at covering news.

Good enough to take their word over national sources here, case in point:

[Jake]

I'm sure they are making their own articles. I posted a BBC article because their RSS feed is built into the Firefox Bookmarks toolbar.

Suffice it to say that, in all of what I posted, the only thing you picked out to disagree with was the source? And the BBC at that?

I didn't disagree with the source, I was just wondering why you didn't get a news feed from your own country's media. It was a lame joke about Fox News which you obviously didn't care for so just ignore what I said. I will however say I am bored of seeing these threads that are based on the US economy.

[redlion]

I didn't disagree with the source, I was just wondering why you didn't get a news feed from your own country's media. It was a lame joke about Fox News which you obviously didn't care for so just ignore what I said. I will however say I am bored of seeing these threads that are based on the US economy.

Sucks that you're bored. But I'm bored by Macy's and Summer movies (which somehow doesn't make it to the general entertainment section?) so I posted something else. Variety is the spice of life.

[Shampoo]

and the best part is washington still thinks they need to be cutting spending

[pyke]

and the best part is washington still thinks they need to be cutting spending

There's probably billions of dollars being wasted on bloated/useless programs. It never hurts to take a look at where your money is going.

[Rikku]

I didn't disagree with the source, I was just wondering why you didn't get a news feed from your own country's media. It was a lame joke about Fox News which you obviously didn't care for so just ignore what I said. I will however say I am bored of seeing these threads that are based on the US economy.

well... i guess you can choose to be ignorant about the events that are taking place around you. I think we're all just trying to figure out the best way out of this.

Honestly though, what would you rather be reading about?

and the best part is washington still thinks they need to be cutting spending

how is this not common sense? What do you do if you take a paycut at work? I don't know anyone who would go out and spend more money! I know i'd go back and revise my budget to see what kind of things I could cut back on. (Cellphone, cable, fun money, or in our government's case: Medicare, defense spending, SS, Welfare programs)

[necospes]

how is this not common sense? What do you do if you take a paycut at work? I don't know anyone who would go out and spend more money! I know i'd go back and revise my budget to see what kind of things I could cut back on. (Cellphone, cable, fun money, or in our government's case: Medicare, defense spending, SS, Welfare programs)

In a recession, spending more money helps to boost the economy. It may seem counter-intuitive at first, but injecting money into the economy means more people will spend money, giving businesses more customers and more money to also spend! This is the basic idea behind Keynesian Economics: injecting money shifts the demand curve to the right.

This is also a perfect time to spend more money, as interest rates are really low.

The deficit is, however, a big problem. Some say that by fixing the economy, the deficit will fix itself. I think that we need to also levy higher taxes on the wealthy, and close corporate tax loopholes. Republicans would have you believe that giving more money to the richest will "trickle down" and create more jobs, but there is no evidence to support this. Rich people and companies will just hoard the money, as they are doing right now. For companies to create new jobs, they need more customers, not more money, and it makes a lot more sense to create more customers by giving poor people money, who need it, and will spend it.

[Rikku]

In a recession, spending more money helps to boost the economy. It may seem counter-intuitive at first, but injecting money into the economy means more people will spend money, giving businesses more customers and more money to also spend! This is the basic idea behind Keynesian Economics: injecting money shifts the demand curve to the right.

This is also a perfect time to spend more money, as interest rates are really low.

The deficit is, however, a big problem. Some say that by fixing the economy, the deficit will fix itself. I think that we need to also levy higher taxes on the wealthy, and close corporate tax loopholes. Republicans would have you believe that giving more money to the richest will "trickle down" and create more jobs, but there is no evidence to support this. Rich people and companies will just hoard the money, as they are doing right now. For companies to create new jobs, they need more customers, not more money, and it makes a lot more sense to create more customers by giving poor people money, who need it, and will spend it.

Ah yes, the perfect straight out the textbook answer. Gotta love it.
Now let's stop and think about things.

1. The Keynesian economic model is not perfect, and does not apply to all cases, case and point being: In the 70's we had an credibly high rate of inflation, at the same time, the unemployment rate was also going up. If you know anything about the Keynesian model you should know that this scenario should be impossible. So there goes that argument.

2. Yes, to a point injecting money should stimulate the economy, however after several tries, enough is enough. It didn't work the first 3 times, it isn't going to work now. Especially when the nation is on the verge of a default. You know what would happen if we defaulted and lost the perfect AAA credit rating? The dollar would be completely devalued, and your purchasing power would be destroyed. It would be 1 thing is we produced our own good here in the country, but since we don't the price of basin groceries would spin out of control.

3. Really? did you even stop to think who would end up paying for the increased tax rate on these large companies? They wouldn't just take the extra taxes out of their bottom line, the higher tax rate would be passed on to consumers (you and me) in the form of higher prices, just like what happened when the price of oil went up.

4. You know what I do think would fix our unemployment rate? Discontinuing the ridiculous unemployment payments that we are making to people who have been sitting on their ass for 18 months. Right now, people who get laid off or fired or quit or whatever just sit around and do nothing, it would be a hell of incentive for them to go back to work if they weren't getting paid to do nothing. Unemployment is mean to help people transition from 1 job to another, not help them live of of our tax dollars for almost 2 years.

[Shampoo]

Ah yes, the perfect straight out the textbook answer. Gotta love it.
Now let's stop and think about things.

1. The Keynesian economic model is not perfect, and does not apply to all cases, case and point being: In the 70's we had an credibly high rate of inflation, at the same time, the unemployment rate was also going up. If you know anything about the Keynesian model you should know that this scenario should be impossible. So there goes that argument.

2. Yes, to a point injecting money should stimulate the economy, however after several tries, enough is enough. It didn't work the first 3 times, it isn't going to work now. Especially when the nation is on the verge of a default. You know what would happen if we defaulted and lost the perfect AAA credit rating? The dollar would be completely devalued, and your purchasing power would be destroyed. It would be 1 thing is we produced our own good here in the country, but since we don't the price of basin groceries would spin out of control.

3. Really? did you even stop to think who would end up paying for the increased tax rate on these large companies? They wouldn't just take the extra taxes out of their bottom line, the higher tax rate would be passed on to consumers (you and me) in the form of higher prices, just like what happened when the price of oil went up.

4. You know what I do think would fix our unemployment rate? Discontinuing the ridiculous unemployment payments that we are making to people who have been sitting on their ass for 18 months. Right now, people who get laid off or fired or quit or whatever just sit around and do nothing, it would be a hell of incentive for them to go back to work if they weren't getting paid to do nothing. Unemployment is mean to help people transition from 1 job to another, not help them live of of our tax dollars for almost 2 years.

ah, the perfect right-wing straight out of the mouths of talk show hosts answer. gotta love it.
now let's stop and actually think about some things.

1. the keynesian model is the most accurate model developed thus far. economics is a relatively new field and there is little long-run data to actually go on. if you have a better theory that applies to more real world scenarios please do tell, or actually, please go and tell every economist why they are wrong.

2. the US was never going to default. the debt ceiling crisis was manufactured by the republican congress because they know obama will cave under pressure. the only reason they dragged it out so long was to maximize the camera time they got to spit their rhetoric and campaign for next year's election.

3. firms cannot simply pass on the entirety of tax increases to consumers, due to the relationship between price and demand. it would likely be split with the firms taking a slightly larger hit than consumers, which I think is fair.

4. this is the most moronic argument ever. do you really think that people would rather get $300 every week than actually have a job and be able to pay their bills? do you really think that there are jobs out there for these people right now? double digit unemployment doesn't happen because people are lazy, it happens because of structural problems. we need to address these problems rather than forcing even more people into poverty and homelessness.

[pyke]

Ah yes, the perfect straight out the textbook answer. Gotta love it.
Now let's stop and think about things.

1. The Keynesian economic model is not perfect, and does not apply to all cases, case and point being: In the 70's we had an credibly high rate of inflation, at the same time, the unemployment rate was also going up. If you know anything about the Keynesian model you should know that this scenario should be impossible. So there goes that argument.

2. Yes, to a point injecting money should stimulate the economy, however after several tries, enough is enough. It didn't work the first 3 times, it isn't going to work now. Especially when the nation is on the verge of a default. You know what would happen if we defaulted and lost the perfect AAA credit rating? The dollar would be completely devalued, and your purchasing power would be destroyed. It would be 1 thing is we produced our own good here in the country, but since we don't the price of basin groceries would spin out of control.

3. Really? did you even stop to think who would end up paying for the increased tax rate on these large companies? They wouldn't just take the extra taxes out of their bottom line, the higher tax rate would be passed on to consumers (you and me) in the form of higher prices, just like what happened when the price of oil went up.

4. You know what I do think would fix our unemployment rate? Discontinuing the ridiculous unemployment payments that we are making to people who have been sitting on their ass for 18 months. Right now, people who get laid off or fired or quit or whatever just sit around and do nothing, it would be a hell of incentive for them to go back to work if they weren't getting paid to do nothing. Unemployment is mean to help people transition from 1 job to another, not help them live of of our tax dollars for almost 2 years.

You don't have to increase taxes on businesses. However, you need to close loopholes that ensure that your most profitable companies will pay no taxes. Oil companies seem to be making record profits every quarter, yet I've seen reports of them paying less than 0$ (thanks to oil subsidies). The US is a country that seemingly believes in socialism for the rich and capitalism for everyone else.

Your politics have been warped for years and it has gotten worse overtime, the tea party being a perfect example of this. If Wisconsin is any indicator of the future, you are all gonna be takin it up the butt soon.

Want to save the economy? Give more people with less marginal income more $ to spend. It's great that billionaires get tax breaks to "create jobs" when there isn't demand that requires additional employees because no one is buying anything.

[Rikku]

ah, the perfect right-wing straight out of the mouths of talk show hosts answer. gotta love it.
now let's stop and actually think about some things.

1. the keynesian model is the most accurate model developed thus far. economics is a relatively new field and there is little long-run data to actually go on. if you have a better theory that applies to more real world scenarios please do tell, or actually, please go and tell every economist why they are wrong.

2. the US was never going to default. the debt ceiling crisis was manufactured by the republican congress because they know obama will cave under pressure. the only reason they dragged it out so long was to maximize the camera time they got to spit their rhetoric and campaign for next year's election.

3. firms cannot simply pass on the entirety of tax increases to consumers, due to the relationship between price and demand. it would likely be split with the firms taking a slightly larger hit than consumers, which I think is fair.

4. this is the most moronic argument ever. do you really think that people would rather get $300 every week than actually have a job and be able to pay their bills? do you really think that there are jobs out there for these people right now? double digit unemployment doesn't happen because people are lazy, it happens because of structural problems. we need to address these problems rather than forcing even more people into poverty and homelessness.

There is almost no point debating this with you, because you aren't even focusing on what I said.

1. I never said that the Keynesian model was wrong. I simply said that it does not apply to every single situation. There is no perfect model that can explain everything. I believe that this is one of the exceptions seeing as how once again, the inflation is slowly creeping up, along with unemployment. Explain that.

2. I am well aware of the fact that the US wasn't going to default, however, if it were to happen it would completely devalue our currency. I'm not criticizing the debt deal, I think it was the best that they could come up with, they cut some spending and raised the ceiling by about the same amount, sounds fair to me. The reason it was dragged out for so long is because people couldn't reach across party lines, and this goes for both sides by the way. If the people in Washington truly knew how to compromise, this whole thing would of been done months ago.

3. Yes, there is a relationship between price and demand, but are you really going to stop eating if the price of groceries goes up? you also have to consider the elasticity of the good before making that comment. As far as expensive good go (phones, Iphads, etc) the increase in price wouldn't really matter, as only the people who can afford these luxuries in the first place buy them.

4. You really have to resort to insults to make your argument seem valid? First, the unemployment is barely sitting at 9.1%. that's not double digits. I don't think that people are lazy, I know they are. Maybe it's just me, but getting $300 a week is WAY too much. you can live more than comfortably by yourself on that. To wrap all of this up, if you raise corporate taxes one of the things that will do is cause them to hire less people, because they will have less money to pay their employees.

You don't have to increase taxes on businesses. However, you need to close loopholes that ensure that your most profitable companies will pay no taxes. Oil companies seem to be making record profits every quarter, yet I've seen reports of them paying less than 0$ (thanks to oil subsidies). The US is a country that seemingly believes in socialism for the rich and capitalism for everyone else.

Your politics have been warped for years and it has gotten worse overtime, the tea party being a perfect example of this. If Wisconsin is any indicator of the future, you are all gonna be takin it up the butt soon.

Want to save the economy? Give more people with less marginal income more $ to spend. It's great that billionaires get tax breaks to "create jobs" when there isn't demand that requires additional employees because no one is buying anything.

Believe me, i don't agree with paying for oil subsidies ether, however we all know that the big oil companies don’t play by the rules, and we would end up paying higher prices at the pump if the subsidies were axed. I am a firm believer in the fact that subsidies should be given to companies that are just starting out, to help them get on their feet, not companies that are showing record profits quarter after quarter. Also, anyone else notice that the price of crude has fallen almost $20 a barrel in the last few months, but the prices for gas hasn't gone down any? Funny how that works.

[necospes]

There is almost no point debating this with you, because you aren't even focusing on what I said.

1. I never said that the Keynesian model was wrong. I simply said that it does not apply to every single situation. There is no perfect model that can explain everything. I believe that this is one of the exceptions seeing as how once again, the inflation is slowly creeping up, along with unemployment. Explain that.

2. I am well aware of the fact that the US wasn't going to default, however, if it were to happen it would completely devalue our currency. I'm not criticizing the debt deal, I think it was the best that they could come up with, they cut some spending and raised the ceiling by about the same amount, sounds fair to me. The reason it was dragged out for so long is because people couldn't reach across party lines, and this goes for both sides by the way. If the people in Washington truly knew how to compromise, this whole thing would of been done months ago.

3. Yes, there is a relationship between price and demand, but are you really going to stop eating if the price of groceries goes up? you also have to consider the elasticity of the good before making that comment. As far as expensive good go (phones, Iphads, etc) the increase in price wouldn't really matter, as only the people who can afford these luxuries in the first place buy them.

4. You really have to resort to insults to make your argument seem valid? First, the unemployment is barely sitting at 9.1%. that's not double digits. I don't think that people are lazy, I know they are. Maybe it's just me, but getting $300 a week is WAY too much. you can live more than comfortably by yourself on that. To wrap all of this up, if you raise corporate taxes one of the things that will do is cause them to hire less people, because they will have less money to pay their employees.

1. Why is stagflation mean the Keynesian model is not applicable? Early Keynesian economists were enamored with the Phillips Curve and believed that stagflation was impossible, but now Keynesian economists realized that stagflation comes from aggregate supply shifting to the left.

4. On the other hand, removing welfare means less people with money to spend, meaning less customers for companies, meaning less jobs. Furthermore, giving welfare is far more efficient than giving tax cuts to the rich because poor people are more likely to spend the money they receive as they NEED to spend it or they may not survive.

How do you know people are lazy? Where are you getting your data from? It sounds like pure speculation to me.

[Shampoo]

There is almost no point debating this with you, because you aren't even focusing on what I said.

I think you mean there's no point debating this with me because I'm right.

4. You really have to resort to insults to make your argument seem valid? First, the unemployment is barely sitting at 9.1%. that's not double digits. I don't think that people are lazy, I know they are. Maybe it's just me, but getting $300 a week is WAY too much. you can live more than comfortably by yourself on that. To wrap all of this up, if you raise corporate taxes one of the things that will do is cause them to hire less people, because they will have less money to pay their employees.

a) people have families
b) having low corporate taxes with numerous loopholes and giving them trillions in "stimulus" didn't get them to create jobs either, nor did it cause them to increase wages. disproportionate bonuses for CEO's don't count.

almost forgot. c) the unemployment figure quoted does not take into account those who have given up on finding employment due to the state of the job market or who have been unemployed for over a certain amount of time (i think 2 years). if you counted these people as unemployed rather then excluding them from the labor force we are definitely at double digit unemployment (actual employable people not working, rather than government "shiny happy everything is fine" figures)

another edit, d) it doesn't include those who are underemployed

Edited by Shampoo, 05 August 2011 - 05:17 PM.