Congratulations, House Republicans!

@One Eyed Mind,

Clearly you don't understand what a zero sum game is or that the economy is not such a game. I am curious where you get your numbers from if you think the published numbers by media and government are not reputable. Where are you numbers from?

I do love the irony when you reference the founding father, who were politician, as being somehow wise in the same paragraph you say politicians can't shape the world. Your posts are so absurdest that I sometimes wonder if you are attempting to be that unintelligible.

1 Reply

@parados,

By "media". Stop right there. The media is doing the government's job? Doesn't the media have like, a thousand different sides? Of course it does. Nice reputable source you have there, it's as ambiguous and redundant as a transvestite kid.

If you think that the term "politician" can apply to the founding fathers, when they have said very wise things about humanity and how to build a community, then you're the one playing games.

So what have we learned today? You don't know what you're talking about. The media, give me a break. They always get the cauldron going for their petty view count. They don't care about humanity and the community. It's all about the shrills and the thrills, didn't you know?

1 Reply

@parados,

parados wrote:

Quote:
"All government spending creates jobs... " You are saying that any and every element of government spending creates jobs. That is patently false.

Ok. tell us which part of government spending doesn't create a job somewhere.
All money spent by the government goes to someone that has a job or is spending the money where people have jobs. Find me a single program of the US government that you think creates no jobs.

Our government aid programs to other countries don't have a significant economic effect here, except in those few cases where the money is earmarked to be spent here.

Setting aside government borrowing for the moment, any new government spending represents tax collections from wage earners and corporations. Thus the net impact on the funds available for demand for goods and services is, at best, zero. Furthermore taxes that reduce private sector investment (and vitally all of them do that) have a large multiplier effect on job creation and new economic activity. Government spending doesn't do that.

If the new government spending is financed with added debt (as is generally
true), then, in normal economic situations, interest rates will rise raising the cost of creating new enterprises or expanding existing ones. If , as is the case now, the Fed is holding interest rates low to protect the government from the otherwise disastrous effects on current budgets of an increased cost in servicing existing debt, then other distortions in economic activity occur - these generally involve the stagnation in the Japanese economy that developed after their 1990s crash and which ewe are experiencing (to a lesser degree) right now.

Then there are the end point conditions which you appear to always ignore. Imagine an economy in which everyone worked for the government and was paid by it. Could such a government finance its activities by taxing a portion of the incomes of its employees. Of course not - arithmetically impossible.

While it is often true that some government spending can be demonstrated to stimulate consumer demand and thereby contribute to job creation, it is not generally true that increased government spending is either the be=st or even a marginally effective way to improve jopb creation or overall economic activity. There many adverse side effects which you persistently ignore.

2 Replies

@One Eyed Mind,

Stop right there yourself. You haven't told us where you get your numbers from. Before you slam any sources you better prove you don't use them yourself by telling us where you get your numbers. Provide a link to show we can access it without the media.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

Quote:

Our government aid programs to other countries don't have a significant economic effect here, except in those few cases where the money is earmarked to be spent here.

Not much of an economic impact is not the same thing as zero impact. I am curious who you think gets the money to those other countries and what JOB they have and how they are paid for doing that JOB.

Quote:

Thus the net impact on the funds available for demand for goods and services is, at best, zero.

Actually, that isn't true. Imagine a world without government and roads. What would be the demand in Florida for goods made in Michigan if there was no way to transport those goods? Government helps create demand for goods by providing the ability to transport those goods effectively.

1 Reply

@parados,

What numbers...?

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

Quote:

Then there are the end point conditions which you appear to always ignore. Imagine an economy in which everyone worked for the government and was paid by it. Could such a government finance its activities by taxing a portion of the incomes of its employees. Of course not - arithmetically impossible.

Since I have never proposed everyone work for the government, you are doing nothing but creating a strawman.

Quote:

While it is often true that some government spending can be demonstrated to stimulate consumer demand and thereby contribute to job creation, it is not generally true that increased government spending is either the be=st or even a marginally effective way to improve jopb creation or overall economic activity.

It's funny how you agree with me at the same time you disagree. I stated earlier that the government might not be the most efficient way to create jobs but you can't argue that it doesn't create jobs.

0 Replies

@One Eyed Mind,

You are arguing that inflation and deflation are bad and you aren't using numbers?

1 Reply

@parados,

Every man has his own expertise.

My expertise is destroying contradictions and illusions via cross-engineering contrasts and distinctions between relation points, much like how a dot is a dot, two dots connected is a line, three lines connected upwards at 90 degrees inwards is a triangle, two triangles with each top point connected vertically makes an hourglass, two more triangle pieces connected to each side of the hourglass creates a unfinished square. In other words, I am an ontological monster.

Inflation has clearly given us zero reason to suspect that it is healthy except for the few people who said otherwise (without real numbers, mind you, since it's all "speculation"), therefore inflation is not only, in itself, a demonstration of ineptitude at several different degrees, the people trying to keep it up don't even have a certain position regarding it.

And you're worried about me not having numbers, when the entire world is based on math already? You don't need to see the numbers, when you have objects, events, relation points to compare one group of assessments to another group of assessments. Jesus, it's like you never noticed that Einstein and Tesla was doing math without numbers. Math is not just numbers, again; it's in objects, people, relation points and it's not difficult to figure things out intrinsically when you have the whole fundamental framework in the palm of your hands.

I don't need numbers to speak up about the current state of the economy, the hypocrisy and degeneracy of the people in power, the contradictions of what they say about it and the very fact that 1% are rich, 99% are not - that is not a sign of a healthy economy - that is a sign of a economy built on hubris, excuses and negligence.

1 Reply

@One Eyed Mind,

So, where did you get the framework from? Give us a link to your source.

Where did you get the numbers that 1% are rich?

1 Reply

@One Eyed Mind,

You wrote,

Quote:

Where is all the money going? The 1%. In other words, this economy is eroding further and further and further. Before you know it, that 1% will go down to 0.8% and keep going until it's 0.1%.

That's a complete contradiction of how our economy has performed since 2009; we're still the strongest economy in the world - even while the Euro countries and China sees slowing growth.

US GDP growth since 2009.

http://i1369.photobucket.com/albums/ag215/Tak_Nomura/images_zpsa2460989.jpg

Where do you get your numbers? Also, where did you study Economics?

1 Reply

@parados,

The same framework every wise man uses - intuition, process elimination and passion.

Again, wise men could shape a world that wasn't even here yet. Politicians can't even shape a world that it is here right now.

You underestimate the power of the brain and its connection to the entire state of existence. It's so powerful, that it can recognize objects outside of this planet, even though it was born in this planet. What does that tell you, parados? It tells you that the brain is our leader, not people.

So I redirect you back to what I said: "I don't need numbers to speak up about the current state of the economy, the hypocrisy and degeneracy of the people in power, the contradictions of what they say about it and the very fact that 1% are rich, 99% are not - that is not a sign of a healthy economy - that is a sign of a economy built on hubris, excuses and negligence." And I add that the founding fathers didn't need to travel to the future to know when an idea was a bad idea and then figure out "why" it was a bad idea, explaining it all in a wise manner.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Notice how those numbers are referring to who is rich and who isn't.

Those numbers are not related to the inflation/deflation discussion. Please pay attention.

1 Reply

@One Eyed Mind,

No, your numbers don't tell us anything. Why are more Americans buying homes and cars? Most cities are showing price increases on homes (that's called inflation), but demand is high.

Cost of housing is increasing at over 3% while inflation is between 1% and 2%.

http://www.freddiemac.com/finance/ehforecast.html

On car sales.

Quote:

US Auto Industry Booming As Car Sales Globally Slip And Slide « CBS Philly - CBS Local
CBS Philly - CBS Local‎ - 2 days ago

1 Reply

@One Eyed Mind,

So the numbers 1% and 99% just magically appeared in your brain. That says a lot about your interaction with the world around you.

2 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

Maybe it's because of the insurance companies finding ways to screw people over, while looking like the good guys.

It's not the economy that is allowing people to buy homes and cars - it's the shady payment plans these insurance businesses make up that takes control over your property when you don't not only pay the money, but pay the interest they keep raising for absolutely no reason except to make you suffer and give them every penny.

1 Reply

@parados,

The 1% are rich. That's not a secret to anyone.

Go ahead and argue it instead of going on about how you'd rather resort to ad hominems than actual discussion.

0 Replies

@parados,

parados wrote:

Quote:
Thus the net impact on the funds available for demand for goods and services is, at best, zero.
Actually, that isn't true. Imagine a world without government and roads. What would be the demand in Florida for goods made in Michigan if there was no way to transport those goods? Government helps create demand for goods by providing the ability to transport those goods effectively.

You are again making illogical connections and inferences. I noted that the government by taxing the public and then using that money for the procurement of goods or services yields a net zero impact on the money available to support total demand for goods and services. The truth of that statement is simply an arithmetic fact. You respond, saying that if the government used the money to create roads that wouldn't be true. That is nonsense. In the hypothetical case at hand exactly the same sum as spent by the government is extracted from the public disposable income. The net change is zero !!!!

I wrote "at best zero" because the government wastes a lot of money on its own bureaucratic overhead and occasional corruption. In general most government spending has a smaller effect on aggregate economic activity than consumer spending, and a much smaller effect than private sector investment. Roads and bridges are indeed (as you suggest) among the best investments government makes, but they generally aren't done very efficiently. A decade ago I ran the Transportation practice of a large nationwide engineering/construction company. In California we competed with CALTRANS, the state transportation bureaucracy which itself designed and built roads and freeways. My company and CALTRANS split the design of the new freeway approaches to the Bay Bridge following the Loma Prieta earthquake which caused several miles of elevated roadway to collapse. We finished our portion in about six months , while CALTRANS took three years to do theirs and they spent almost four times as much. The magnitude and complexity of the two efforts were nearly identical. Both produced about the same public benefit, but the benefit/$ spent by the government was about 1/4th that of the private sector operation.

1 Reply

@parados,

It's not so much his social interactions, but how he perceives them. He seems full of opinions without much in the way of facts or evidence for them.

He's a self-made man of gross ignorance even as he believes he understands the environment in which he lives.

He opines about our economy, but when asked where he studied Economics, no answer is forthcoming. What is he afraid of? That his 'book learning' wasn't at all successful? That's even if he did read some articles on economics. LOL

1 Reply

@One Eyed Mind,

Ignorance rating for OEM; 1o0% LOL

Under ACA, insurance companies must return any excess income above 20% to consumers.

How are they screwing consumers?

2 Replies

Congratulations, House Republicans!

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know