114
   

Where is the US economy headed?

 
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 Feb, 2010 03:30 pm
@okie,
Quote:
Parados, I would suspect that even you would admit that waging war and/or massive government spending is not the way to economic prosperity. If World War II had continued unabated for another decade or two, we would obviously be broke several times over. A war by itself does not fix the economy, it only served as a catalyst for later conditions that were more favorable.

Boy.. let's just pretend that the federal government didn't run HUGE deficits and then just claim it all magically came into being later because okie says it did.

Quote:
The same thing with the New Deal, government spending by itself does not fix the economy, and the record shows that it did not during the 30's.
Which record okie? Are you talking ACTUAL numbers here or just your selected ones that ignore 90% of the rest of the numbers.
okie
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 Feb, 2010 03:33 pm
@parados,
How come you ignored my point about comparing the gdps of North Korea and South Korea, Parados. If you think government run economies work better, then you should be able to use that comparison, right?
parados
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 Feb, 2010 03:40 pm
@okie,
Quote:
How come you ignored my point about comparing the gdps of North Korea and South Korea, Parados. If you think government run economies work better, then you should be able to use that comparison, right?

Sure.. but do you really want to go down this road okie?

North Korean GDP (2008) 40 billion
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/kn.html
South Korean Government spending (2008) - 216.7 billion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_South_Korea

So.. let's see. .The South Korean government spends 5 times the amount of the TOTAL GDP of North Korea.
So.. the South Korean government spends a LOT more than the North Korean government. What did you say about government spending not helping at all?
realjohnboy
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 Feb, 2010 03:42 pm
@hawkeye10,
Hawk: It is not just the state and local governments who are in financial trouble over what are called, euphemistically, "unfunded liabilities." Many corporations routinely never set aside real money to fund things like retirement benefits. Faced with a strike? Promise more retirement benefits. Punt the ball down the field to a future generation of executives.
As a young man I worked for one of the big CPA firms. It paid the bills, but my real love was economics. I questioned the higher ups about the debt that was, back then, not even an item on the balance sheet. It was hidden in a footnote.
Not to worry. The economy will keep expanding, the companies will continue to grow and the stock market will rise forever.
Now that us old farts from the baby boom generation are retiring, we crack open the piggy bank that is supposed to contain money for our Social Security benefits and, guess what? There ain't no cash in there. Just a bunch of IOU's left there by politicians from both parties over the years who punted the ball down the field.
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 Feb, 2010 04:21 pm
@realjohnboy,
Corporations, counties and cities can all rub out the liability through bankruptcy. Corporations have done it for a decade, and we are now about to see city local governments do it big time. States do not have that option.

It sucks that those working now will not have the funds during retirement that they think that they will. But that is already a done deal, no way to fix that now, we tried to bubble our way out of the problem and that did not work. The question is how will states shed this liability? we don't have a clear method currently.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 Feb, 2010 04:23 pm
@realjohnboy,
Is that not an inexorable price of democracy Johnnie? Expecting politicians to be any different is like expecting terriers not to chase rats. You might be thought of as punting the blame onto an easy target.

Something I read today caused me to think that if an infinite number of infinitessimal fractions of a dollar were gathered on one dealers desk he would have all the dollars in the world. What do you think? It's an ideal mind experiment but does it provide a glimpse of modern business.
realjohnboy
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 Feb, 2010 05:35 pm
@spendius,
Nice to see you again, Spendi. I was wondering where you were.
Johnboy's Story Time!
"An infinite number of infinitesimal fractions of a dollar..."
I don't know about "...all the dollars in the world," but there was a computer wizard who came up with a very clever scam.
The bank he worked for paid interest each day on a customer's balance. Perhaps it came to $1.02343. The $1.02 went to the customer while the $0.00343 went to his account. Multiply that times a million or zillion accounts every day.
Clever, eh?
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 Feb, 2010 05:45 pm
@realjohnboy,
That's simple John. circa late 60s. BC I mean.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 Feb, 2010 07:56 pm
@parados,
parados wrote:
Wow... You do realize that the war effort was paid for by HUGE deficit spending, don't you okie? The government spent money, TONS of money it didn't have. In fact the government spent almost 45% of GDP for the war effort. That deficit spending stimulated the economy and was far more than was ever spent prior to the war.

The primary difference between the deficit spending before 1940 and the deficit spending after 1940 was that before, the deficit spending was primarily money "given" to people, while after the deficit spending was primarily money "paid" to people. The "given" money was for producing little. The "paid " money was for producing much.

The significance difference between "given" money and "paid" money is that "given" money increased taxable income very little, while "paid" money increased taxable income very much. "Paid" money not only increased jobs and job incomes, it increased investments and investment incomes, which generated more jobs, and more job and investment income. "Paid" money reduced unemployment much, while "given" money reduced unemployment little.
parados
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 Feb, 2010 08:02 pm
@ican711nm,
1940 Civilian employment - 55,640
1944 Civilian employment - 53,960

http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat1.pdf

I'm sorry ican but the civilian employment DECREASED during that time period. The facts again show you to be wrong.
roger
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 Feb, 2010 08:20 pm
@parados,
Just guessing from the dates, I would suppose that the civilian component was working boo coo overtime hours to make up for the expanded employment in the armed forces. Just speculation. . . .
parados
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 Feb, 2010 08:22 pm
@roger,
That may be the case, but ican argued jobs were CREATED by the spending from 1940 on as opposed to the spending from 1936-1940. In reality, the opposite was true.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 Feb, 2010 08:28 pm
@parados,
You just posted a very intellectually dishonest bunch of crap, Parados, essentially comparing apples with oranges. The more correct comparison would be South Korea's gdp, which is largely driven by the private sector, not total government expenditures in terms of dollars. I can't believe you would try such nonsensical debating tactics, oh yes, I should believe it, because this is your norm. The gdp of South Korea in 2008 was 929 billion, or more than 23 times that of North Korea. The gdp of North Korea is a mere 4.3% of that of South Korea. So as a percent of gdp, North Korea's government obviously spends several times that of South Korea's government, that would be another more applicable statistic instead of total dollars, Parados, and just as obviously, their economy has obviously not flourished, in fact the country suffers from widespread poverty, suffering, and starvation, as most government directed economies do. And if Obama continues to insist upon more government directed economy here, it will also lead to more poverty and suffering, as well as loss of freedoms.

Your arguments are frankly silly, Parados. But it is not surprising coming from a guy that is apparently Marxist in your political sympathies, you will try to twist any statistic in your lawyerly fashion to suit your particular idealogy.
okie
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 Feb, 2010 08:35 pm
@okie,
P.S. to my above post, if not for the aid of the United States, starvation in North Korea would probably have been worse than it even was in the past 20 years.

By the way, I would suggest all of Obama's Marxist friends go visit or even live in North Korea, they might learn something, and then they could come back and inform Obama about it. That would include at least the Reverend Wright, Saul Alinsky, and Bill Ayers for a start.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  0  
Reply Sat 20 Feb, 2010 08:41 pm
@okie,
Quote:
You just posted a very intellectually dishonest bunch of crap, Parados, essentially comparing apples with oranges.


I see. you would prefer to compare your oranges with apples.
Neither North Korea nor South Korea got to their present GDP in the last year. If you want to compare their path then you need to look at how each got there.

One of the most interesting things you will probably find is the billions of US dollars that were given to South Korea over the years.
Quote:
From 1953 to 1974, when grant assistance dwindled to a negligible amount, the nation received some US$4 billion of grant aid. About US$3 billion was received before 1968, forming an average of 60 percent of all investment in South Korea.
From 1966-1974 almost 20% of the investment in South Korea was the result of US aid dollars.
http://www.country-data.com/cgi-bin/query/r-12334.html

And that doesn't even count the loans from the US and the IMF. That sounds an awful lot like socialism, doesn't it okie? Giving the South Koreans billions to create jobs.
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 Feb, 2010 10:16 pm
for all of the a2k chumps who keep saying that I am unreasonably gloom and doom I give you
Quote:

The Fat Lady Has Sung

By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
Published: February 20, 2010
A small news item from Tracy, Calif., caught my eye last week. Local station CBS 13 reported: “Tracy residents will now have to pay every time they call 911 for a medical emergency. But there are a couple of options. Residents can pay a $48 voluntary fee for the year, which allows them to call 911 as many times as necessary. Or there’s the option of not signing up for the annual fee. Instead they will be charged $300 if they make a call for help.”

Yes, sir, we’ve just had our 70 fat years in America, thanks to the Greatest Generation and the bounty of freedom and prosperity they built for us. And in these past 70 years, leadership " whether of the country, a university, a company, a state, a charity, or a township " has largely been about giving things away, building things from scratch, lowering taxes or making grants.

But now it feels as if we are entering a new era, “where the great task of government and of leadership is going to be about taking things away from people,” said the Johns Hopkins University foreign policy expert Michael Mandelbaum.

Indeed, to lead now is to trim, to fire or to downsize services, programs or personnel. We’ve gone from the age of government handouts to the age of citizen givebacks, from the age of companions fly free to the age of paying for each bag.
.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/21/opinion/21friedman.html

Excuse me, but Friedman is a LIBERAL . How long are you fools going to go on avoiding the obvious, shooting the messenger?
okie
 
  1  
Reply Sun 21 Feb, 2010 02:53 pm
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye, your article has some grains of truth in it, but the following one could not be more wrong.

"If Obama fails, we all fail."

If we want to have any hope of succeeding, Obama must fail. If we care about America surviving, we must make sure Obama fails, and we must all stand up to be counted in the next elections to defeat the liberal leftist agenda that is bent upon taking the country all of us know and love, and turning it into some leftist disaster.
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Feb, 2010 01:27 am
Quote:
But there is a kind of logic to the current Republican position: in effect, the party is doubling down on starve-the-beast. Depriving the government of revenue, it turns out, wasn’t enough to push politicians into dismantling the welfare state. So now the de facto strategy is to oppose any responsible action until we are in the midst of a fiscal catastrophe. You read it here first.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/22/opinion/22krugman.html?hp

And Catastrophe we shall have, it can't be stopped now. But the feckless and corrupt Democrats have done their share as well to wreck this country. Both parties need to be relegated to the scrap heap of history, the sooner the better.
okie
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Feb, 2010 11:00 am
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:
Both parties need to be relegated to the scrap heap of history, the sooner the better.

I would agree with you in regard to the Democrats, they are the most corrupt party I have ever witnessed in my entire lifetime, and now they are being run by Marxist sympathizers. Its time the people woke up.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  0  
Reply Mon 22 Feb, 2010 01:11 pm
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:
And Catastrophe we shall have, it can't be stopped now. But the feckless and corrupt Democrats have done their share as well to wreck this country. Both parties need to be relegated to the scrap heap of history, the sooner the better.

Quote:
Can't
by Edgar A. Guest
Can't is the worst word that's written or
spoken;
Doing more harm here than slander and lies;
On it is many a strong spirit broken,
And with it many a good purpose dies.
It springs from the lips of the thoughtless each
morning
And robs us of courage we need through the
day:
It rings in our ears like a timely-sent warning
And laughs when we falter and fall by the
way.
Can't is the father of feeble endeavor,
The parent of terror and half-hearted work;
It weakens the efforts of artisans clever,
And makes of the toiler an indolent shirk.
It poisons the soul of the man with a vision,
It stifles in infancy many a plan;
It greets honest toiling with open derision
And mocks at the hopes and the dreams of a
man.
Can't is a word none should speak without
blushing;
To utter it should be a symbol of shame;
Ambition and courage it daily is crushing;
It blights a man's purpose and shortens his
aim.
Despise it with all of your hatred of error;
Refuse it the lodgment it seeks in your brain;
Arm against it as a creature of terror,
And all that you dream of you some day shall
gain.
Can't is the word that is foe to ambition,
An enemy ambushed to shatter your will;
Its prey is forever the man with a mission
And bows but to courage and patience and
skill.
Hate it, with hatred that's deep and undying,
For once it is welcomed 'twill break any
man;
Whatever the goal you are seeking, keep trying
And answer this demon by saying: "I can."
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

The States Need Help - Discussion by Robert Gentel
Fiscal Cliff - Question by JPB
Let GM go Bankrupt - Discussion by Woiyo9
Sovereign debt - Question by JohnJD
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.38 seconds on 11/25/2024 at 06:44:23