|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
United States43251 Posts
On October 23 2013 11:38 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2013 11:12 KwarK wrote:On October 23 2013 11:00 Wegandi wrote:On October 23 2013 08:40 DoubleReed wrote:Where's the "spend money to get employment back up" option? Seriously. Priorities. The debt does not matter when unemployment is at 7.2% after five years. Labor participation is at a historic low. Fix debt problems with growth. You'd think this line of thought would be dead after the Carter years. If spending was the answer, why not just print up a few hundred thousand for every individual to spend, or better yet, few million. I heard Zimbabwe spent trillions - maybe we can play imitator. You can't spend something you don't have, and going into debt means you're printing the money, or mortgaging assets value. The USG will end up having to give over large chunks of land to foreign powers or, they'll just print the money and find ourselves in Weimar. The Federal Government let alone local municipalities are incompetent boobs at best and malicious thieves at worst. Besides, we all ready spent a trillion dollars we didn't have to give to the Bankers, which they mortgaged on the basis of your future labor. Hooray! (That's not on top of the trillions and trillions they all ready spend!) How about, instead of giving the power of spending your money to these assholes called politicians to dole out to their cronies and themselves, that you instead support a program of spending the money you make yourself on what things you prefer at prices you determine to be worthwhile. I'm sure you're not going to spend a few thousand on a toilet, or 3 million on a one room shack along the Illinois River (The amount of pissing away money I saw while stationed in Milwaukee...). I am sure we can get our money's worth from Solyndra, or Northropp Gruman, or XE, or GE, or Goldman Sachs, or Citigroup...yay Jobs! Lol. The ignorance. The Government only destroys jobs (the unseen) giving only the illusion of job creation (the seen). If the Government took all of our money and with it produced 15 jobs you would probably say they created jobs, but the effect of such a policy would be destroying millions of jobs, but you can't see this, because the jobs that would have been created if such a policy never was enacted is invisible to everyone except the sharp mind (logos!). This is why the people who poo poo logic in economics are helpless. You can't show someone who refuses to string chains of causal reality together the errors of their viewpoint. You don't understand how maths works. If you're borrowing money at below the rate of inflation you're receiving free money for doing it. The US government is not about to sell Alaska to finance its debts. You think you're right but it's just because you don't know what you're talking about, your post was a long string of failures to understand the subject and shitty examples (the US is not Zimbabwe). Well that's not entirely correct. You don't get free money, you are getting interest free money. Alhtough that's often a great deal, you are still increasing your debt. And that's an issue. Maybe not at the 90% of GDP line Rogoff and many other fiscal conservatives drew, but at some point it will get too much, and at some point you need to pay it back. Hurray! More Debt! isn't exactly an argument. Austerity till nothing of a countries economy is left, on the other hand, obviously isn't really a smart idea too.
I don't think you understand the meaning of the word below in my sentence. It means that the debt depreciates faster than the interest increases it for an overall loss in the total real value of the debt. This is free money.
|
On October 23 2013 12:09 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2013 11:38 Nyxisto wrote:On October 23 2013 11:12 KwarK wrote:On October 23 2013 11:00 Wegandi wrote:On October 23 2013 08:40 DoubleReed wrote:Where's the "spend money to get employment back up" option? Seriously. Priorities. The debt does not matter when unemployment is at 7.2% after five years. Labor participation is at a historic low. Fix debt problems with growth. You'd think this line of thought would be dead after the Carter years. If spending was the answer, why not just print up a few hundred thousand for every individual to spend, or better yet, few million. I heard Zimbabwe spent trillions - maybe we can play imitator. You can't spend something you don't have, and going into debt means you're printing the money, or mortgaging assets value. The USG will end up having to give over large chunks of land to foreign powers or, they'll just print the money and find ourselves in Weimar. The Federal Government let alone local municipalities are incompetent boobs at best and malicious thieves at worst. Besides, we all ready spent a trillion dollars we didn't have to give to the Bankers, which they mortgaged on the basis of your future labor. Hooray! (That's not on top of the trillions and trillions they all ready spend!) How about, instead of giving the power of spending your money to these assholes called politicians to dole out to their cronies and themselves, that you instead support a program of spending the money you make yourself on what things you prefer at prices you determine to be worthwhile. I'm sure you're not going to spend a few thousand on a toilet, or 3 million on a one room shack along the Illinois River (The amount of pissing away money I saw while stationed in Milwaukee...). I am sure we can get our money's worth from Solyndra, or Northropp Gruman, or XE, or GE, or Goldman Sachs, or Citigroup...yay Jobs! Lol. The ignorance. The Government only destroys jobs (the unseen) giving only the illusion of job creation (the seen). If the Government took all of our money and with it produced 15 jobs you would probably say they created jobs, but the effect of such a policy would be destroying millions of jobs, but you can't see this, because the jobs that would have been created if such a policy never was enacted is invisible to everyone except the sharp mind (logos!). This is why the people who poo poo logic in economics are helpless. You can't show someone who refuses to string chains of causal reality together the errors of their viewpoint. You don't understand how maths works. If you're borrowing money at below the rate of inflation you're receiving free money for doing it. The US government is not about to sell Alaska to finance its debts. You think you're right but it's just because you don't know what you're talking about, your post was a long string of failures to understand the subject and shitty examples (the US is not Zimbabwe). Well that's not entirely correct. You don't get free money, you are getting interest free money. Alhtough that's often a great deal, you are still increasing your debt. And that's an issue. Maybe not at the 90% of GDP line Rogoff and many other fiscal conservatives drew, but at some point it will get too much, and at some point you need to pay it back. Hurray! More Debt! isn't exactly an argument. Austerity till nothing of a countries economy is left, on the other hand, obviously isn't really a smart idea too. I don't think you understand the meaning of the word below in my sentence. It means that the debt depreciates faster than the interest increases it for an overall loss in the total real value of the debt. This is free money.
Okay i misunderstood you, but you can't just inflate all your debt away by printing money. If the currency loses more value than what it was actually worth wenn someone bought the bond no one is going to invest in that currency. Else you could just print a 15 trillion dollar bill and be done with it.
|
United States43251 Posts
On October 23 2013 12:17 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2013 12:09 KwarK wrote:On October 23 2013 11:38 Nyxisto wrote:On October 23 2013 11:12 KwarK wrote:On October 23 2013 11:00 Wegandi wrote:On October 23 2013 08:40 DoubleReed wrote:Where's the "spend money to get employment back up" option? Seriously. Priorities. The debt does not matter when unemployment is at 7.2% after five years. Labor participation is at a historic low. Fix debt problems with growth. You'd think this line of thought would be dead after the Carter years. If spending was the answer, why not just print up a few hundred thousand for every individual to spend, or better yet, few million. I heard Zimbabwe spent trillions - maybe we can play imitator. You can't spend something you don't have, and going into debt means you're printing the money, or mortgaging assets value. The USG will end up having to give over large chunks of land to foreign powers or, they'll just print the money and find ourselves in Weimar. The Federal Government let alone local municipalities are incompetent boobs at best and malicious thieves at worst. Besides, we all ready spent a trillion dollars we didn't have to give to the Bankers, which they mortgaged on the basis of your future labor. Hooray! (That's not on top of the trillions and trillions they all ready spend!) How about, instead of giving the power of spending your money to these assholes called politicians to dole out to their cronies and themselves, that you instead support a program of spending the money you make yourself on what things you prefer at prices you determine to be worthwhile. I'm sure you're not going to spend a few thousand on a toilet, or 3 million on a one room shack along the Illinois River (The amount of pissing away money I saw while stationed in Milwaukee...). I am sure we can get our money's worth from Solyndra, or Northropp Gruman, or XE, or GE, or Goldman Sachs, or Citigroup...yay Jobs! Lol. The ignorance. The Government only destroys jobs (the unseen) giving only the illusion of job creation (the seen). If the Government took all of our money and with it produced 15 jobs you would probably say they created jobs, but the effect of such a policy would be destroying millions of jobs, but you can't see this, because the jobs that would have been created if such a policy never was enacted is invisible to everyone except the sharp mind (logos!). This is why the people who poo poo logic in economics are helpless. You can't show someone who refuses to string chains of causal reality together the errors of their viewpoint. You don't understand how maths works. If you're borrowing money at below the rate of inflation you're receiving free money for doing it. The US government is not about to sell Alaska to finance its debts. You think you're right but it's just because you don't know what you're talking about, your post was a long string of failures to understand the subject and shitty examples (the US is not Zimbabwe). Well that's not entirely correct. You don't get free money, you are getting interest free money. Alhtough that's often a great deal, you are still increasing your debt. And that's an issue. Maybe not at the 90% of GDP line Rogoff and many other fiscal conservatives drew, but at some point it will get too much, and at some point you need to pay it back. Hurray! More Debt! isn't exactly an argument. Austerity till nothing of a countries economy is left, on the other hand, obviously isn't really a smart idea too. I don't think you understand the meaning of the word below in my sentence. It means that the debt depreciates faster than the interest increases it for an overall loss in the total real value of the debt. This is free money. Okay i misunderstood you, but you can't just inflate all your debt away by printing money. If the currency loses more value than what it was actually worth wenn someone bought the bond no one is going to invest in that currency. Else you could just print a 15 trillion dollar bill and be done with it.
No, obviously there is a point where it damages investor confidence and a 15t bill would certainly do that. However worrying about that at present seems a little silly because we already have a mechanic whereby the treasury gets feedback on investor confidence which adjusts rates on treasury bonds. It's called the rate at which people are prepared to loan money to the US government at. Borrowing is, at present, a very attractive proposition because it's free money. And if your fear is that if you take too much free money then eventually there will be less of it for you to take then I still have no idea why your conclusion is that you shouldn't take any.
|
WASHINGTON -- The Transportation Department office charged with overseeing the 2.6 million miles of pipelines in the United States is spending more time at oil and gas industry conferences than it is addressing spills and other incidents, a watchdog group contends in a new report.
Between 2007 and 2012, staff from the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration spent 2,807 days at conferences, meetings and other events sponsored by the oil, gas and pipeline industries, according to the report from Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER). That's nearly three times as many as the 970 days the staffers spent responding to spills, explosions and other significant incidents on the pipelines they regulate. PEER drew the figures from agency records received in response to a Freedom of Information Act request.
According to records that PEER provided to The Huffington Post, the pipeline agency spent $245,938 on travel to industry meetings and events sponsored by groups like the American Petroleum Institute and the American Gas Association in those six years. But it spent only $171,801 responding to significant spills, explosions and breakdowns on pipelines that transport oil, gas and other hazardous materials during the same period.
PEER also found that agency representatives attended 850 meetings and other events with industry in that period, but staffers were sent to investigate only 159 significant spills, explosions and breakdowns. A previous release from the watchdog group, also based on FOIA information received from the agency, found there have been more than 300 spills, explosions and other incidents since 2006 that the agency did not dispatch inspectors to investigate. PEER found that since 2006, the federal agency and its state partners had inspected less than one-fifth of the 2.6 million miles of pipeline.
The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration responded that PEER's figures "are incomplete" because they only include travel time for investigations. On more complex investigations, agency engineers and technical specialists "spend many weeks analyzing data and determining how company actions contributed to an incident," the agency said. It also said that the figures don't include time that staffers spend in the field doing other regulatory and oversight activities, nor do they include the time that state inspectors, whose work the agency funds, spend on investigations.
Source
|
On October 23 2013 13:04 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +WASHINGTON -- The Transportation Department office charged with overseeing the 2.6 million miles of pipelines in the United States is spending more time at oil and gas industry conferences than it is addressing spills and other incidents, a watchdog group contends in a new report.
Between 2007 and 2012, staff from the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration spent 2,807 days at conferences, meetings and other events sponsored by the oil, gas and pipeline industries, according to the report from Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER). That's nearly three times as many as the 970 days the staffers spent responding to spills, explosions and other significant incidents on the pipelines they regulate. PEER drew the figures from agency records received in response to a Freedom of Information Act request.
According to records that PEER provided to The Huffington Post, the pipeline agency spent $245,938 on travel to industry meetings and events sponsored by groups like the American Petroleum Institute and the American Gas Association in those six years. But it spent only $171,801 responding to significant spills, explosions and breakdowns on pipelines that transport oil, gas and other hazardous materials during the same period.
PEER also found that agency representatives attended 850 meetings and other events with industry in that period, but staffers were sent to investigate only 159 significant spills, explosions and breakdowns. A previous release from the watchdog group, also based on FOIA information received from the agency, found there have been more than 300 spills, explosions and other incidents since 2006 that the agency did not dispatch inspectors to investigate. PEER found that since 2006, the federal agency and its state partners had inspected less than one-fifth of the 2.6 million miles of pipeline.
The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration responded that PEER's figures "are incomplete" because they only include travel time for investigations. On more complex investigations, agency engineers and technical specialists "spend many weeks analyzing data and determining how company actions contributed to an incident," the agency said. It also said that the figures don't include time that staffers spend in the field doing other regulatory and oversight activities, nor do they include the time that state inspectors, whose work the agency funds, spend on investigations. Source
Isn't that a good thing though? If I told you that the firemen at my local fire house spend 10 times more time lifting weights then they do putting out fires, it could mean that they are letting people burn alive so they can get ripped, or (more likely) it could mean that there just aren't a whole lot of fires in the area. Seems like they need another metric in there. Like they went to X corporate events during some defined "critical response time", or they left Y explosions unresolved.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
Says in the article:
A previous release from the watchdog group, also based on FOIA information received from the agency, found there have been more than 300 spills, explosions and other incidents since 2006 that the agency did not dispatch inspectors to investigate. PEER found that since 2006, the federal agency and its state partners had inspected less than one-fifth of the 2.6 million miles of pipeline.
|
However worrying about that at present seems a little silly because we already have a mechanic whereby the treasury gets feedback on investor confidence which adjusts rates on treasury bonds. It's called the rate at which people are prepared to loan money to the US government at.
No, we do not. Since 2008 the Federal Reserve has absorbed nearly $3 trillion in new Federal debt, and is now carrying virtually the entirety of new issuance. The United States can get its "free money" precisely because its debt is being monetised by the central bank. The interest rate has nothing to do with price sensitivity: the present QE programme is intentionally causing scarcity in treasuries, which in turn pushes down interest rates. If the Central Bank lifts its QE, the interest rates will adjust to a more "natural equilibrium", which will be far from "free."
|
On October 23 2013 11:53 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2013 11:09 DoubleReed wrote:On October 23 2013 09:45 zlefin wrote:
The military expenditures are essentially welfare in many ways; and the US military budget could be cut in half and we'd still have military hegemony over the world.
As to debt, it's gonna hurt, now or later. The question is will spending now actually fix it, or just delay the pain until later?
I'd rather reform the spending so it enables growth.
There's a difference between CREATING jobs and employing people; too much government expenditure merely employs people without truly creating value (either short or long term).
No, the debt's not going to hurt now or later. That's a false dilemma. There's no pain that comes from the debt, unless you do austerity measures, which is stupid, because it shrinks the economy and then forces more austerity. You can manage debt with growth. There's no need to slit our wrists. This is the problem with talking about the debt with high unemployment. People suggest things that will do serious, lasting harm to our economy when our economy is still not very strong. People use scare tactics to make people think that debt needs to be managed RIGHT NOW at the cost of our economic growth, when the only solution is our economic growth. We need to get people employed right now. The fact that we still have a sluggish economy means that many people have been out of work for several years. Those people become less desirable to hire the longer they are out of work. This essentially creates a lasting, unnecessary employment problem, which does far more harm to our economic outlook (and long-term estimates of our deficit) than budget items in a single year. And yes, the key is government spending. The private sector has mostly recovered, and is growing a reasonable rate. The public sector, however, is lagging. A couple questions that go along with that line of thought: 1) Whether we can get back to trend growth, ever, or if this a new normal. 2) The extent to which, going into 2014, total spending is still a driving issue. I'm of the opinion (since the sequester kicked in) that we could be spending somewhat more now, but that depends heavily on what the money would be spent on. I'm also of the opinion that non spending issues are growing in importance.
It can become the new normal if we just sit on our asses and allow unemployment to continue. That is a self-fulfilling prophecy. Unemployment can almost certainly go down even if labor participation doesn't go back up entirely because we've let it fester this long already.
Austerity is clearly driving the issue. Again, the private sector has pretty much recovered. The public sector is continuing to shed jobs. All the evidence points to a public sector issue.
|
On October 23 2013 23:46 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2013 11:53 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 23 2013 11:09 DoubleReed wrote:On October 23 2013 09:45 zlefin wrote:
The military expenditures are essentially welfare in many ways; and the US military budget could be cut in half and we'd still have military hegemony over the world.
As to debt, it's gonna hurt, now or later. The question is will spending now actually fix it, or just delay the pain until later?
I'd rather reform the spending so it enables growth.
There's a difference between CREATING jobs and employing people; too much government expenditure merely employs people without truly creating value (either short or long term).
No, the debt's not going to hurt now or later. That's a false dilemma. There's no pain that comes from the debt, unless you do austerity measures, which is stupid, because it shrinks the economy and then forces more austerity. You can manage debt with growth. There's no need to slit our wrists. This is the problem with talking about the debt with high unemployment. People suggest things that will do serious, lasting harm to our economy when our economy is still not very strong. People use scare tactics to make people think that debt needs to be managed RIGHT NOW at the cost of our economic growth, when the only solution is our economic growth. We need to get people employed right now. The fact that we still have a sluggish economy means that many people have been out of work for several years. Those people become less desirable to hire the longer they are out of work. This essentially creates a lasting, unnecessary employment problem, which does far more harm to our economic outlook (and long-term estimates of our deficit) than budget items in a single year. And yes, the key is government spending. The private sector has mostly recovered, and is growing a reasonable rate. The public sector, however, is lagging. A couple questions that go along with that line of thought: 1) Whether we can get back to trend growth, ever, or if this a new normal. 2) The extent to which, going into 2014, total spending is still a driving issue. I'm of the opinion (since the sequester kicked in) that we could be spending somewhat more now, but that depends heavily on what the money would be spent on. I'm also of the opinion that non spending issues are growing in importance. It can become the new normal if we just sit on our asses and allow unemployment to continue. That is a self-fulfilling prophecy. Unemployment can almost certainly go down even if labor participation doesn't go back up entirely because we've let it fester this long already. Austerity is clearly driving the issue. Again, the private sector has pretty much recovered. The public sector is continuing to shed jobs. All the evidence points to a public sector issue.
I'm somewhat skeptical of it myself, but there is a case to be made that we've been in a new normal for a while now and that credit growth and the crisis covered up and then exacerbated the issue. Like I said, I'm skeptical, but I don't think you can dismiss the idea 100%.
I'm not sure how much of the story is austerity. The labor market has been steadily lackluster throughout the recovery, both when fiscal stimulus was high, and currently post-cuts. Employment at the Federal government has been falling, but remains elevated if you exclude the post office and back to the pre crisis level if you don't. State and local governments are still at a depressed level, but that's a separate issue from the Feds and has been ticking up this year. As for the private sector, construction has been improving but remains one of the biggest portions of the output gap.
|
Its not really a separate issue of the feds because they can send money to the states. Which is what I've been suggesting.
|
On October 24 2013 01:03 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2013 23:46 DoubleReed wrote:On October 23 2013 11:53 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 23 2013 11:09 DoubleReed wrote:On October 23 2013 09:45 zlefin wrote:
The military expenditures are essentially welfare in many ways; and the US military budget could be cut in half and we'd still have military hegemony over the world.
As to debt, it's gonna hurt, now or later. The question is will spending now actually fix it, or just delay the pain until later?
I'd rather reform the spending so it enables growth.
There's a difference between CREATING jobs and employing people; too much government expenditure merely employs people without truly creating value (either short or long term).
No, the debt's not going to hurt now or later. That's a false dilemma. There's no pain that comes from the debt, unless you do austerity measures, which is stupid, because it shrinks the economy and then forces more austerity. You can manage debt with growth. There's no need to slit our wrists. This is the problem with talking about the debt with high unemployment. People suggest things that will do serious, lasting harm to our economy when our economy is still not very strong. People use scare tactics to make people think that debt needs to be managed RIGHT NOW at the cost of our economic growth, when the only solution is our economic growth. We need to get people employed right now. The fact that we still have a sluggish economy means that many people have been out of work for several years. Those people become less desirable to hire the longer they are out of work. This essentially creates a lasting, unnecessary employment problem, which does far more harm to our economic outlook (and long-term estimates of our deficit) than budget items in a single year. And yes, the key is government spending. The private sector has mostly recovered, and is growing a reasonable rate. The public sector, however, is lagging. A couple questions that go along with that line of thought: 1) Whether we can get back to trend growth, ever, or if this a new normal. 2) The extent to which, going into 2014, total spending is still a driving issue. I'm of the opinion (since the sequester kicked in) that we could be spending somewhat more now, but that depends heavily on what the money would be spent on. I'm also of the opinion that non spending issues are growing in importance. It can become the new normal if we just sit on our asses and allow unemployment to continue. That is a self-fulfilling prophecy. Unemployment can almost certainly go down even if labor participation doesn't go back up entirely because we've let it fester this long already. Austerity is clearly driving the issue. Again, the private sector has pretty much recovered. The public sector is continuing to shed jobs. All the evidence points to a public sector issue. I'm not sure how much of the story is austerity. The labor market has been steadily lackluster throughout the recovery, both when fiscal stimulus was high, and currently post-cuts. Employment at the Federal government has been falling, but remains elevated if you exclude the post office and back to the pre crisis level if you don't. State and local governments are still at a depressed level, but that's a separate issue from the Feds and has been ticking up this year. As for the private sector, construction has been improving but remains one of the biggest portions of the output gap.
Fiscal stimulus was high during the crisis... so altho the labor market didn't showed any big "recovery" it didn't mean that it wasn't effective : you would have to evaluate the number of job it prevented from getting destroyed.
To say it bluntly, it didn't create any job, it limited the rise of unemployment.
Simple explanation of the mecanism at hand in Krugman's blog back in 2009 : http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/01/06/stimulus-arithmetic-wonkish-but-important/
On October 23 2013 12:17 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2013 12:09 KwarK wrote:On October 23 2013 11:38 Nyxisto wrote:On October 23 2013 11:12 KwarK wrote:On October 23 2013 11:00 Wegandi wrote:On October 23 2013 08:40 DoubleReed wrote:Where's the "spend money to get employment back up" option? Seriously. Priorities. The debt does not matter when unemployment is at 7.2% after five years. Labor participation is at a historic low. Fix debt problems with growth. You'd think this line of thought would be dead after the Carter years. If spending was the answer, why not just print up a few hundred thousand for every individual to spend, or better yet, few million. I heard Zimbabwe spent trillions - maybe we can play imitator. You can't spend something you don't have, and going into debt means you're printing the money, or mortgaging assets value. The USG will end up having to give over large chunks of land to foreign powers or, they'll just print the money and find ourselves in Weimar. The Federal Government let alone local municipalities are incompetent boobs at best and malicious thieves at worst. Besides, we all ready spent a trillion dollars we didn't have to give to the Bankers, which they mortgaged on the basis of your future labor. Hooray! (That's not on top of the trillions and trillions they all ready spend!) How about, instead of giving the power of spending your money to these assholes called politicians to dole out to their cronies and themselves, that you instead support a program of spending the money you make yourself on what things you prefer at prices you determine to be worthwhile. I'm sure you're not going to spend a few thousand on a toilet, or 3 million on a one room shack along the Illinois River (The amount of pissing away money I saw while stationed in Milwaukee...). I am sure we can get our money's worth from Solyndra, or Northropp Gruman, or XE, or GE, or Goldman Sachs, or Citigroup...yay Jobs! Lol. The ignorance. The Government only destroys jobs (the unseen) giving only the illusion of job creation (the seen). If the Government took all of our money and with it produced 15 jobs you would probably say they created jobs, but the effect of such a policy would be destroying millions of jobs, but you can't see this, because the jobs that would have been created if such a policy never was enacted is invisible to everyone except the sharp mind (logos!). This is why the people who poo poo logic in economics are helpless. You can't show someone who refuses to string chains of causal reality together the errors of their viewpoint. You don't understand how maths works. If you're borrowing money at below the rate of inflation you're receiving free money for doing it. The US government is not about to sell Alaska to finance its debts. You think you're right but it's just because you don't know what you're talking about, your post was a long string of failures to understand the subject and shitty examples (the US is not Zimbabwe). Well that's not entirely correct. You don't get free money, you are getting interest free money. Alhtough that's often a great deal, you are still increasing your debt. And that's an issue. Maybe not at the 90% of GDP line Rogoff and many other fiscal conservatives drew, but at some point it will get too much, and at some point you need to pay it back. Hurray! More Debt! isn't exactly an argument. Austerity till nothing of a countries economy is left, on the other hand, obviously isn't really a smart idea too. I don't think you understand the meaning of the word below in my sentence. It means that the debt depreciates faster than the interest increases it for an overall loss in the total real value of the debt. This is free money. Okay i misunderstood you, but you can't just inflate all your debt away by printing money. If the currency loses more value than what it was actually worth wenn someone bought the bond no one is going to invest in that currency. Else you could just print a 15 trillion dollar bill and be done with it.
Why am I am not surprised that you are German ?
|
On October 24 2013 02:27 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2013 01:03 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 23 2013 23:46 DoubleReed wrote:On October 23 2013 11:53 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 23 2013 11:09 DoubleReed wrote:On October 23 2013 09:45 zlefin wrote:
The military expenditures are essentially welfare in many ways; and the US military budget could be cut in half and we'd still have military hegemony over the world.
As to debt, it's gonna hurt, now or later. The question is will spending now actually fix it, or just delay the pain until later?
I'd rather reform the spending so it enables growth.
There's a difference between CREATING jobs and employing people; too much government expenditure merely employs people without truly creating value (either short or long term).
No, the debt's not going to hurt now or later. That's a false dilemma. There's no pain that comes from the debt, unless you do austerity measures, which is stupid, because it shrinks the economy and then forces more austerity. You can manage debt with growth. There's no need to slit our wrists. This is the problem with talking about the debt with high unemployment. People suggest things that will do serious, lasting harm to our economy when our economy is still not very strong. People use scare tactics to make people think that debt needs to be managed RIGHT NOW at the cost of our economic growth, when the only solution is our economic growth. We need to get people employed right now. The fact that we still have a sluggish economy means that many people have been out of work for several years. Those people become less desirable to hire the longer they are out of work. This essentially creates a lasting, unnecessary employment problem, which does far more harm to our economic outlook (and long-term estimates of our deficit) than budget items in a single year. And yes, the key is government spending. The private sector has mostly recovered, and is growing a reasonable rate. The public sector, however, is lagging. A couple questions that go along with that line of thought: 1) Whether we can get back to trend growth, ever, or if this a new normal. 2) The extent to which, going into 2014, total spending is still a driving issue. I'm of the opinion (since the sequester kicked in) that we could be spending somewhat more now, but that depends heavily on what the money would be spent on. I'm also of the opinion that non spending issues are growing in importance. It can become the new normal if we just sit on our asses and allow unemployment to continue. That is a self-fulfilling prophecy. Unemployment can almost certainly go down even if labor participation doesn't go back up entirely because we've let it fester this long already. Austerity is clearly driving the issue. Again, the private sector has pretty much recovered. The public sector is continuing to shed jobs. All the evidence points to a public sector issue. I'm not sure how much of the story is austerity. The labor market has been steadily lackluster throughout the recovery, both when fiscal stimulus was high, and currently post-cuts. Employment at the Federal government has been falling, but remains elevated if you exclude the post office and back to the pre crisis level if you don't. State and local governments are still at a depressed level, but that's a separate issue from the Feds and has been ticking up this year. As for the private sector, construction has been improving but remains one of the biggest portions of the output gap. Fiscal stimulus was high during the crisis... so altho the labor market didn't showed any big "recovery" it didn't mean that it wasn't effective : you would have to evaluate the number of job it prevented from getting destroyed. To say it bluntly, it didn't create any job, it limited the rise of unemployment. Simple explanation of the mecanism at hand in Krugman's blog back in 2009 : http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/01/06/stimulus-arithmetic-wonkish-but-important/Show nested quote +On October 23 2013 12:17 Nyxisto wrote:On October 23 2013 12:09 KwarK wrote:On October 23 2013 11:38 Nyxisto wrote:On October 23 2013 11:12 KwarK wrote:On October 23 2013 11:00 Wegandi wrote:On October 23 2013 08:40 DoubleReed wrote:Where's the "spend money to get employment back up" option? Seriously. Priorities. The debt does not matter when unemployment is at 7.2% after five years. Labor participation is at a historic low. Fix debt problems with growth. You'd think this line of thought would be dead after the Carter years. If spending was the answer, why not just print up a few hundred thousand for every individual to spend, or better yet, few million. I heard Zimbabwe spent trillions - maybe we can play imitator. You can't spend something you don't have, and going into debt means you're printing the money, or mortgaging assets value. The USG will end up having to give over large chunks of land to foreign powers or, they'll just print the money and find ourselves in Weimar. The Federal Government let alone local municipalities are incompetent boobs at best and malicious thieves at worst. Besides, we all ready spent a trillion dollars we didn't have to give to the Bankers, which they mortgaged on the basis of your future labor. Hooray! (That's not on top of the trillions and trillions they all ready spend!) How about, instead of giving the power of spending your money to these assholes called politicians to dole out to their cronies and themselves, that you instead support a program of spending the money you make yourself on what things you prefer at prices you determine to be worthwhile. I'm sure you're not going to spend a few thousand on a toilet, or 3 million on a one room shack along the Illinois River (The amount of pissing away money I saw while stationed in Milwaukee...). I am sure we can get our money's worth from Solyndra, or Northropp Gruman, or XE, or GE, or Goldman Sachs, or Citigroup...yay Jobs! Lol. The ignorance. The Government only destroys jobs (the unseen) giving only the illusion of job creation (the seen). If the Government took all of our money and with it produced 15 jobs you would probably say they created jobs, but the effect of such a policy would be destroying millions of jobs, but you can't see this, because the jobs that would have been created if such a policy never was enacted is invisible to everyone except the sharp mind (logos!). This is why the people who poo poo logic in economics are helpless. You can't show someone who refuses to string chains of causal reality together the errors of their viewpoint. You don't understand how maths works. If you're borrowing money at below the rate of inflation you're receiving free money for doing it. The US government is not about to sell Alaska to finance its debts. You think you're right but it's just because you don't know what you're talking about, your post was a long string of failures to understand the subject and shitty examples (the US is not Zimbabwe). Well that's not entirely correct. You don't get free money, you are getting interest free money. Alhtough that's often a great deal, you are still increasing your debt. And that's an issue. Maybe not at the 90% of GDP line Rogoff and many other fiscal conservatives drew, but at some point it will get too much, and at some point you need to pay it back. Hurray! More Debt! isn't exactly an argument. Austerity till nothing of a countries economy is left, on the other hand, obviously isn't really a smart idea too. I don't think you understand the meaning of the word below in my sentence. It means that the debt depreciates faster than the interest increases it for an overall loss in the total real value of the debt. This is free money. Okay i misunderstood you, but you can't just inflate all your debt away by printing money. If the currency loses more value than what it was actually worth wenn someone bought the bond no one is going to invest in that currency. Else you could just print a 15 trillion dollar bill and be done with it. Why am I am not surprised that you are German ?
I could live on the moon, that wouldn't change the fact that monetary policy isn't solving any problems. All it does is buying you time and easing pressure.
|
On October 24 2013 02:24 DoubleReed wrote:
Its not really a separate issue of the feds because they can send money to the states. Which is what I've been suggesting.
You're right, that's an option. I think it would be difficult to structure, but it's an option.
|
On October 24 2013 02:38 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2013 02:27 WhiteDog wrote:On October 24 2013 01:03 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 23 2013 23:46 DoubleReed wrote:On October 23 2013 11:53 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 23 2013 11:09 DoubleReed wrote:On October 23 2013 09:45 zlefin wrote:
The military expenditures are essentially welfare in many ways; and the US military budget could be cut in half and we'd still have military hegemony over the world.
As to debt, it's gonna hurt, now or later. The question is will spending now actually fix it, or just delay the pain until later?
I'd rather reform the spending so it enables growth.
There's a difference between CREATING jobs and employing people; too much government expenditure merely employs people without truly creating value (either short or long term).
No, the debt's not going to hurt now or later. That's a false dilemma. There's no pain that comes from the debt, unless you do austerity measures, which is stupid, because it shrinks the economy and then forces more austerity. You can manage debt with growth. There's no need to slit our wrists. This is the problem with talking about the debt with high unemployment. People suggest things that will do serious, lasting harm to our economy when our economy is still not very strong. People use scare tactics to make people think that debt needs to be managed RIGHT NOW at the cost of our economic growth, when the only solution is our economic growth. We need to get people employed right now. The fact that we still have a sluggish economy means that many people have been out of work for several years. Those people become less desirable to hire the longer they are out of work. This essentially creates a lasting, unnecessary employment problem, which does far more harm to our economic outlook (and long-term estimates of our deficit) than budget items in a single year. And yes, the key is government spending. The private sector has mostly recovered, and is growing a reasonable rate. The public sector, however, is lagging. A couple questions that go along with that line of thought: 1) Whether we can get back to trend growth, ever, or if this a new normal. 2) The extent to which, going into 2014, total spending is still a driving issue. I'm of the opinion (since the sequester kicked in) that we could be spending somewhat more now, but that depends heavily on what the money would be spent on. I'm also of the opinion that non spending issues are growing in importance. It can become the new normal if we just sit on our asses and allow unemployment to continue. That is a self-fulfilling prophecy. Unemployment can almost certainly go down even if labor participation doesn't go back up entirely because we've let it fester this long already. Austerity is clearly driving the issue. Again, the private sector has pretty much recovered. The public sector is continuing to shed jobs. All the evidence points to a public sector issue. I'm not sure how much of the story is austerity. The labor market has been steadily lackluster throughout the recovery, both when fiscal stimulus was high, and currently post-cuts. Employment at the Federal government has been falling, but remains elevated if you exclude the post office and back to the pre crisis level if you don't. State and local governments are still at a depressed level, but that's a separate issue from the Feds and has been ticking up this year. As for the private sector, construction has been improving but remains one of the biggest portions of the output gap. Fiscal stimulus was high during the crisis... so altho the labor market didn't showed any big "recovery" it didn't mean that it wasn't effective : you would have to evaluate the number of job it prevented from getting destroyed. To say it bluntly, it didn't create any job, it limited the rise of unemployment. Simple explanation of the mecanism at hand in Krugman's blog back in 2009 : http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/01/06/stimulus-arithmetic-wonkish-but-important/On October 23 2013 12:17 Nyxisto wrote:On October 23 2013 12:09 KwarK wrote:On October 23 2013 11:38 Nyxisto wrote:On October 23 2013 11:12 KwarK wrote:On October 23 2013 11:00 Wegandi wrote:On October 23 2013 08:40 DoubleReed wrote:Where's the "spend money to get employment back up" option? Seriously. Priorities. The debt does not matter when unemployment is at 7.2% after five years. Labor participation is at a historic low. Fix debt problems with growth. You'd think this line of thought would be dead after the Carter years. If spending was the answer, why not just print up a few hundred thousand for every individual to spend, or better yet, few million. I heard Zimbabwe spent trillions - maybe we can play imitator. You can't spend something you don't have, and going into debt means you're printing the money, or mortgaging assets value. The USG will end up having to give over large chunks of land to foreign powers or, they'll just print the money and find ourselves in Weimar. The Federal Government let alone local municipalities are incompetent boobs at best and malicious thieves at worst. Besides, we all ready spent a trillion dollars we didn't have to give to the Bankers, which they mortgaged on the basis of your future labor. Hooray! (That's not on top of the trillions and trillions they all ready spend!) How about, instead of giving the power of spending your money to these assholes called politicians to dole out to their cronies and themselves, that you instead support a program of spending the money you make yourself on what things you prefer at prices you determine to be worthwhile. I'm sure you're not going to spend a few thousand on a toilet, or 3 million on a one room shack along the Illinois River (The amount of pissing away money I saw while stationed in Milwaukee...). I am sure we can get our money's worth from Solyndra, or Northropp Gruman, or XE, or GE, or Goldman Sachs, or Citigroup...yay Jobs! Lol. The ignorance. The Government only destroys jobs (the unseen) giving only the illusion of job creation (the seen). If the Government took all of our money and with it produced 15 jobs you would probably say they created jobs, but the effect of such a policy would be destroying millions of jobs, but you can't see this, because the jobs that would have been created if such a policy never was enacted is invisible to everyone except the sharp mind (logos!). This is why the people who poo poo logic in economics are helpless. You can't show someone who refuses to string chains of causal reality together the errors of their viewpoint. You don't understand how maths works. If you're borrowing money at below the rate of inflation you're receiving free money for doing it. The US government is not about to sell Alaska to finance its debts. You think you're right but it's just because you don't know what you're talking about, your post was a long string of failures to understand the subject and shitty examples (the US is not Zimbabwe). Well that's not entirely correct. You don't get free money, you are getting interest free money. Alhtough that's often a great deal, you are still increasing your debt. And that's an issue. Maybe not at the 90% of GDP line Rogoff and many other fiscal conservatives drew, but at some point it will get too much, and at some point you need to pay it back. Hurray! More Debt! isn't exactly an argument. Austerity till nothing of a countries economy is left, on the other hand, obviously isn't really a smart idea too. I don't think you understand the meaning of the word below in my sentence. It means that the debt depreciates faster than the interest increases it for an overall loss in the total real value of the debt. This is free money. Okay i misunderstood you, but you can't just inflate all your debt away by printing money. If the currency loses more value than what it was actually worth wenn someone bought the bond no one is going to invest in that currency. Else you could just print a 15 trillion dollar bill and be done with it. Why am I am not surprised that you are German ? I could live on the moon, that wouldn't change the fact that monetary policy isn't solving any problems. All it does is buying you time and easing pressure.
Your vision is full of preconceived notions and can be entirely explained by your nationality. If you were coming from a country with a high debt ratio, a different demographic trend, a bad balance of trade, you would have an entirely new perspective on things.
And yes, monetary policy can't really solve unemployment, but it sure can solve the debt problem.
|
On October 24 2013 02:27 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2013 01:03 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 23 2013 23:46 DoubleReed wrote:On October 23 2013 11:53 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 23 2013 11:09 DoubleReed wrote:On October 23 2013 09:45 zlefin wrote:
The military expenditures are essentially welfare in many ways; and the US military budget could be cut in half and we'd still have military hegemony over the world.
As to debt, it's gonna hurt, now or later. The question is will spending now actually fix it, or just delay the pain until later?
I'd rather reform the spending so it enables growth.
There's a difference between CREATING jobs and employing people; too much government expenditure merely employs people without truly creating value (either short or long term).
No, the debt's not going to hurt now or later. That's a false dilemma. There's no pain that comes from the debt, unless you do austerity measures, which is stupid, because it shrinks the economy and then forces more austerity. You can manage debt with growth. There's no need to slit our wrists. This is the problem with talking about the debt with high unemployment. People suggest things that will do serious, lasting harm to our economy when our economy is still not very strong. People use scare tactics to make people think that debt needs to be managed RIGHT NOW at the cost of our economic growth, when the only solution is our economic growth. We need to get people employed right now. The fact that we still have a sluggish economy means that many people have been out of work for several years. Those people become less desirable to hire the longer they are out of work. This essentially creates a lasting, unnecessary employment problem, which does far more harm to our economic outlook (and long-term estimates of our deficit) than budget items in a single year. And yes, the key is government spending. The private sector has mostly recovered, and is growing a reasonable rate. The public sector, however, is lagging. A couple questions that go along with that line of thought: 1) Whether we can get back to trend growth, ever, or if this a new normal. 2) The extent to which, going into 2014, total spending is still a driving issue. I'm of the opinion (since the sequester kicked in) that we could be spending somewhat more now, but that depends heavily on what the money would be spent on. I'm also of the opinion that non spending issues are growing in importance. It can become the new normal if we just sit on our asses and allow unemployment to continue. That is a self-fulfilling prophecy. Unemployment can almost certainly go down even if labor participation doesn't go back up entirely because we've let it fester this long already. Austerity is clearly driving the issue. Again, the private sector has pretty much recovered. The public sector is continuing to shed jobs. All the evidence points to a public sector issue. I'm not sure how much of the story is austerity. The labor market has been steadily lackluster throughout the recovery, both when fiscal stimulus was high, and currently post-cuts. Employment at the Federal government has been falling, but remains elevated if you exclude the post office and back to the pre crisis level if you don't. State and local governments are still at a depressed level, but that's a separate issue from the Feds and has been ticking up this year. As for the private sector, construction has been improving but remains one of the biggest portions of the output gap. Fiscal stimulus was high during the crisis... so altho the labor market didn't showed any big "recovery" it didn't mean that it wasn't effective : you would have to evaluate the number of job it prevented from getting destroyed. To say it bluntly, it didn't create any job, it limited the rise of unemployment. Simple explanation of the mecanism at hand in Krugman's blog back in 2009 : http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/01/06/stimulus-arithmetic-wonkish-but-important/
I'm referring to the effects after the recession ended. Fiscal stimulus remained, then was reduced (austerity) and the labor market remained very steady throughout.
|
Here's a question: at what point should Obama fire Kathleen Sebelius?
Keep in mind that, unless I'm forgetting someone, Obama hasn't fired anyone from his administration despite having all sorts of reason to do so.
|
On October 24 2013 03:01 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2013 02:38 Nyxisto wrote:On October 24 2013 02:27 WhiteDog wrote:On October 24 2013 01:03 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 23 2013 23:46 DoubleReed wrote:On October 23 2013 11:53 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 23 2013 11:09 DoubleReed wrote:On October 23 2013 09:45 zlefin wrote:
The military expenditures are essentially welfare in many ways; and the US military budget could be cut in half and we'd still have military hegemony over the world.
As to debt, it's gonna hurt, now or later. The question is will spending now actually fix it, or just delay the pain until later?
I'd rather reform the spending so it enables growth.
There's a difference between CREATING jobs and employing people; too much government expenditure merely employs people without truly creating value (either short or long term).
No, the debt's not going to hurt now or later. That's a false dilemma. There's no pain that comes from the debt, unless you do austerity measures, which is stupid, because it shrinks the economy and then forces more austerity. You can manage debt with growth. There's no need to slit our wrists. This is the problem with talking about the debt with high unemployment. People suggest things that will do serious, lasting harm to our economy when our economy is still not very strong. People use scare tactics to make people think that debt needs to be managed RIGHT NOW at the cost of our economic growth, when the only solution is our economic growth. We need to get people employed right now. The fact that we still have a sluggish economy means that many people have been out of work for several years. Those people become less desirable to hire the longer they are out of work. This essentially creates a lasting, unnecessary employment problem, which does far more harm to our economic outlook (and long-term estimates of our deficit) than budget items in a single year. And yes, the key is government spending. The private sector has mostly recovered, and is growing a reasonable rate. The public sector, however, is lagging. A couple questions that go along with that line of thought: 1) Whether we can get back to trend growth, ever, or if this a new normal. 2) The extent to which, going into 2014, total spending is still a driving issue. I'm of the opinion (since the sequester kicked in) that we could be spending somewhat more now, but that depends heavily on what the money would be spent on. I'm also of the opinion that non spending issues are growing in importance. It can become the new normal if we just sit on our asses and allow unemployment to continue. That is a self-fulfilling prophecy. Unemployment can almost certainly go down even if labor participation doesn't go back up entirely because we've let it fester this long already. Austerity is clearly driving the issue. Again, the private sector has pretty much recovered. The public sector is continuing to shed jobs. All the evidence points to a public sector issue. I'm not sure how much of the story is austerity. The labor market has been steadily lackluster throughout the recovery, both when fiscal stimulus was high, and currently post-cuts. Employment at the Federal government has been falling, but remains elevated if you exclude the post office and back to the pre crisis level if you don't. State and local governments are still at a depressed level, but that's a separate issue from the Feds and has been ticking up this year. As for the private sector, construction has been improving but remains one of the biggest portions of the output gap. Fiscal stimulus was high during the crisis... so altho the labor market didn't showed any big "recovery" it didn't mean that it wasn't effective : you would have to evaluate the number of job it prevented from getting destroyed. To say it bluntly, it didn't create any job, it limited the rise of unemployment. Simple explanation of the mecanism at hand in Krugman's blog back in 2009 : http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/01/06/stimulus-arithmetic-wonkish-but-important/On October 23 2013 12:17 Nyxisto wrote:On October 23 2013 12:09 KwarK wrote:On October 23 2013 11:38 Nyxisto wrote:On October 23 2013 11:12 KwarK wrote:On October 23 2013 11:00 Wegandi wrote:On October 23 2013 08:40 DoubleReed wrote:Where's the "spend money to get employment back up" option? Seriously. Priorities. The debt does not matter when unemployment is at 7.2% after five years. Labor participation is at a historic low. Fix debt problems with growth. You'd think this line of thought would be dead after the Carter years. If spending was the answer, why not just print up a few hundred thousand for every individual to spend, or better yet, few million. I heard Zimbabwe spent trillions - maybe we can play imitator. You can't spend something you don't have, and going into debt means you're printing the money, or mortgaging assets value. The USG will end up having to give over large chunks of land to foreign powers or, they'll just print the money and find ourselves in Weimar. The Federal Government let alone local municipalities are incompetent boobs at best and malicious thieves at worst. Besides, we all ready spent a trillion dollars we didn't have to give to the Bankers, which they mortgaged on the basis of your future labor. Hooray! (That's not on top of the trillions and trillions they all ready spend!) How about, instead of giving the power of spending your money to these assholes called politicians to dole out to their cronies and themselves, that you instead support a program of spending the money you make yourself on what things you prefer at prices you determine to be worthwhile. I'm sure you're not going to spend a few thousand on a toilet, or 3 million on a one room shack along the Illinois River (The amount of pissing away money I saw while stationed in Milwaukee...). I am sure we can get our money's worth from Solyndra, or Northropp Gruman, or XE, or GE, or Goldman Sachs, or Citigroup...yay Jobs! Lol. The ignorance. The Government only destroys jobs (the unseen) giving only the illusion of job creation (the seen). If the Government took all of our money and with it produced 15 jobs you would probably say they created jobs, but the effect of such a policy would be destroying millions of jobs, but you can't see this, because the jobs that would have been created if such a policy never was enacted is invisible to everyone except the sharp mind (logos!). This is why the people who poo poo logic in economics are helpless. You can't show someone who refuses to string chains of causal reality together the errors of their viewpoint. You don't understand how maths works. If you're borrowing money at below the rate of inflation you're receiving free money for doing it. The US government is not about to sell Alaska to finance its debts. You think you're right but it's just because you don't know what you're talking about, your post was a long string of failures to understand the subject and shitty examples (the US is not Zimbabwe). Well that's not entirely correct. You don't get free money, you are getting interest free money. Alhtough that's often a great deal, you are still increasing your debt. And that's an issue. Maybe not at the 90% of GDP line Rogoff and many other fiscal conservatives drew, but at some point it will get too much, and at some point you need to pay it back. Hurray! More Debt! isn't exactly an argument. Austerity till nothing of a countries economy is left, on the other hand, obviously isn't really a smart idea too. I don't think you understand the meaning of the word below in my sentence. It means that the debt depreciates faster than the interest increases it for an overall loss in the total real value of the debt. This is free money. Okay i misunderstood you, but you can't just inflate all your debt away by printing money. If the currency loses more value than what it was actually worth wenn someone bought the bond no one is going to invest in that currency. Else you could just print a 15 trillion dollar bill and be done with it. Why am I am not surprised that you are German ? I could live on the moon, that wouldn't change the fact that monetary policy isn't solving any problems. All it does is buying you time and easing pressure. Your vision is full of preconceived notions and can be entirely explained by your nationality. If you were coming from a country with a high debt ratio, a different demographic trend, a bad balance of trade, you would have an entirely new perspective on things. And yes, monetary policy can't really solve unemployment, but it sure can solve the debt problem.
I'll just ignore the first the part and ask you, could you please give me an example on where monetary policy is currently fixing anyone's debt problems?
|
Kathleen Sebelius? is she the person in charge of the new healthcare website?
If so, then he should fire her now, immediately; as she screwed up very VERY badly, and obviously shouldn't be in charge of such a thing at all. There's plenty of tech companies in America, just farm out the job of fixing it to one of them or something.
|
On October 24 2013 03:14 zlefin wrote:
Kathleen Sebelius? is she the person in charge of the new healthcare website?
If so, then he should fire her now, immediately; as she screwed up very VERY badly, and obviously shouldn't be in charge of such a thing at all. There's plenty of tech companies in America, just farm out the job of fixing it to one of them or something.
I'm not sure that she's directly in charge of the website, but as the HHS secretary, she's in charge of Obamacare and its implementation.
|
(CBS News) CBS News has uncovered a serious pricing problem with HealthCare.gov. It stems from the Obama administration's efforts to improve its health care website. A new online feature can dramatically underestimate the cost of insurance.
The administration announced it would provide a new "shop and browse" feature Sunday, but it's not giving consumers the real picture. In some cases, people could end up paying double of what they see on the website, CBS News' Jan Crawford reported Wednesday on "CBS This Morning."
Source.
What's funny is that this is the kind of shit that private businesses get raked over the coals for doing under states' consumer protections statutes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
