| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
FoeHamr
United States489 Posts
On August 06 2011 11:08 Cassel_Castle wrote: Businesses aren't charities, it's not like you can donate to them and they'll save an American worker's job. Your not really donating to them. Your just not taking money that they could be using to hire people and expand. | ||
|
Zealotdriver
United States1557 Posts
| ||
|
DeepElemBlues
United States5079 Posts
I'm sure you've studied economics, or something of the sort before. But how do you make such conclusive claims about such complex systems? I've studied economics for the last 3 years and I will not dare to make scientific and conclusive claims such as these. What is your evidence and/or reasoning for: I'm sure I don't care that you've studied economics, you should have studied a little harder. - Keynesianism .. failed in moderate to large doses. What is the economic situation in the United States and Europe right now, after three years of deficit spending in order to take "bad" debt off the private ledger and put it on the public one, and various amounts of "stimulus" spending here and in Europe? It's a very easy question if you read the headlines. - UK has 0% growth because of austerity policies. That isn't my opinion, it's the opinion of various left-leaning commentators. My opinion is that their austerity policies have not been austere enough and also have not been complemented with proper regulatory reform that is necessary for the British economy to get back on its feet. - Government debt doesn't stimulate economy after debt reaches a certain point. It's pretty much common sense. Government can take on more debt than any kind of private institution, but even it has a limit (no pun intended). Unless you think that government can just endlessly take on debt without a care. And the economic results from Europe and the USA the last few days and months are indicative that we are near or have reached that limit. Unless, of course, Germany and France are dictating Greece around just for the hell of it. Definitely not because they're afraid if they keep trying to keep Greece from going down without meaningful change from Greece they might be pulled in too. Definitely not because if Greece does go down they go down. - "The past few years should have readily disabused even the most foolish of this notion, but we still have people like you who think you can credit card your way out of anything." - Why? Why, what? Why should it have disabused them? Possibly because the Eurozone and the United States are in slow-motion economic crashes right now despite attempts to credit card their way out of their economic predicaments? Don't say "we've tried these things and we're still fucked", as you're just now making the claim that we wouldn't have been worse off without these policies which requires just as much evidence to support. We've tried these things and we're still fucked mostly as a result of these things. Sorry, but your characterization of what saying that must mean is nonsense. I make no such claim in saying that. You can't get around the reality that the policies failed at their intended purpose and we are now in another debt crisis right on the heels of the last one. All we've done since then is take on more debt. So... what might the problem be, Mr. Economics Student? Possibly, taking on more debt at a rate the market can not and will not sustain? This does not mean we shouldn't have spent any money at all; the crash we may have soon would have happened without a doubt if we hadn't spend a lot of money in 2008. But the spending after that has had the opposite effect it was intended to, to the point where the financial health of one of the EU's smallest countries is now inextricably linked with the health of the Euro; surely not a situation anyone would want, but there it is. And to the point where the Chinese and Japanese don't want to buy any more of what the Treasury's selling, well before we reached this moment of downgrade. | ||
|
Cassel_Castle
United States820 Posts
On August 06 2011 11:19 FoeHamr wrote: Your not really donating to them. Your just not taking money that they could be using to hire people and expand. But you're assuming that they'll use the cash they save on labor, which is a totally baseless assumption. Furthermore, who's to say they'll use it on American labor? American workers are pretty expensive to hire compared to the rest of the world. | ||
|
DeltaSigmaL
United States205 Posts
On August 06 2011 11:19 FoeHamr wrote: Your not really donating to them. Your just not taking money that they could be using to hire people and expand. Companies don't look at every dollar and say "could we possible hire another person?" there's more to business than just employees. I think this might be getting off topic. Isn't this about the debt? how we should deal with it? Could people please give solutions and defend their solutions instead of only bashing other solutions? | ||
|
arbitrageur
Australia1202 Posts
On August 06 2011 11:17 DeltaSigmaL wrote: Economists said spend during 2008-9 and spend we did. It save us from certain depression. If you doubt the depression looke at the climate back then. Lehman, AIG were failing, credit was freezing. Trust in banks was falling, sound familar? Now that things are more or less stable, extreme right wing has the audacity to claim we didn't need that spending. They call it reckless. What they are doing is extremely reckless. (I don't have anything against the right, infact I think they are better at getting things done than the left, it's just the extreme that I do not like.) You're just as easily brainwashed as the side that opposes you. Claims without references or supportive evidence. How do you know what you think you know? | ||
|
FarmI3oy
United States255 Posts
On August 06 2011 11:23 Cassel_Castle wrote: But you're assuming that they'll use the cash they save on labor, which is a totally baseless assumption. Furthermore, who's to say they'll use it on American labor? American workers are pretty expensive to hire compared to the rest of the world. whos fault is that then? | ||
|
caradoc
Canada3022 Posts
| ||
|
Alou
United States3748 Posts
On August 06 2011 11:19 FoeHamr wrote: Your not really donating to them. Your just not taking money that they could be using to hire people and expand. Or money they could use to raise their personal salaries. | ||
|
Pyrrhuloxia
United States6700 Posts
| ||
|
TofuFox
374 Posts
On August 06 2011 10:56 DeepElemBlues wrote: Am I psychic? No, unlike you, I just read Politico, The Hill, etc., and actually know what is going on. I don't display my ignorance with contemptuous questions about whether someone else is "psychic" when they give me information I disagree with. Protip: The thing to do when a politician proclaims the other side is at fault when it is politically advantageous to do so is to not believe them. I'm aware of "insider" statements that they were close to a deal that was broken off when Obama went for an additional $400 billion in revenue. I just think everyone involved had an agenda, and that a) There is no evidence Boehner would have went for the 3.8 bil deal. "Close" doesn't count. b) The 4.2 bil deal he supposedly walked out on was fundamentally reasonable and it was unreasonable for him to walk out on it. "Taxes are at the lowest point in a long time" is a non-sequitir to what I said. Not entirely on topic, admittedly, but I was replying to your whine about the horrors of tax increases. While taxes increases are not by default economy boosts, increasing them slightly will not be a huge burden on the economy. Unfortunately for you, the Fed and the Treasury have used every trick up their sleeve to revive the economy and it has failed Actually, the government in general hasn't used a lot of the tricks it could have, particularly c.f. inflation. The negative consequences of more debt are larger than the negative consequences of cutting government spending in a recession. I'm not entirely sure that's true. The S&P's long term forecast is largely in regards to a) Political dysfunction. b) The long term entitlement issue. Neither of which have anything to do with mindless advocacy of cutting government spending in a recession. Not that I am fully opposed to cutting government spending, as long as it is done coherently. Further, if the negative consequences of the debt are so large, then why don't they also outweigh the negative effects of tax increases? Also, I have no idea what the hell "my side" is, as I have neither donated to nor voted for anyone currently in Congress or the Presidency. | ||
|
caradoc
Canada3022 Posts
durr, it must be the damn domestic workers fault, demanding a living wage that pays for expenses and allows people to live above the poverty line. I can't think of who elses fault it must be. Theres really nobody else involved at all. We really shouldn't think of anything but those damn domestic workers demanding too much. It would in fact be the stuff of conspiracy theorists and extremists to think that it would be anyone but those damn greedy workers. We gotta keep tightening that belt and blame nobody but the lazy domestic workers. and possibly mexicans, its possibly their fault too. pay no attention to that man behind the curtain! EDIT: Sorry for potentially excessive sarcasm. I'd better stay out of this thread until I can be sure of being able to be patient enough to post in it. | ||
|
FarmI3oy
United States255 Posts
On August 06 2011 11:29 Pyrrhuloxia wrote: The ship sinks and no one knows why, and no one will direct their guesses at themselves. Us lazy American's to lazy to even take responsibility for our own short comings. | ||
|
Cassel_Castle
United States820 Posts
| ||
|
DeltaSigmaL
United States205 Posts
On August 06 2011 11:24 arbitrageur wrote: You're just as easily brainwashed as the side that opposes you. Claims without references or supportive evidence. How do you know what you think you know? http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=abVpg8xJDMWk Gives you a sense of how bad things were http://money.cnn.com/2008/10/01/markets/markets_newyork/index.htm?postversion=2008100118 Companies jittery. Bailouts pass. No 2nd depression. You want me to believe everything would be all right if government didn't intervene and let company after company fall? Where's YOUR evidence? | ||
|
arbitrageur
Australia1202 Posts
On August 06 2011 11:23 DeepElemBlues wrote: What is the economic situation in the United States and Europe right now, after three years of deficit spending in order to take "bad" debt off the private ledger and put it on the public one, and various amounts of "stimulus" spending here and in Europe? It's a very easy question if you read the headlines. Evidence from headlines. And as I expected, an argument of self-evidence. On August 06 2011 11:23 DeepElemBlues wrote:That isn't my opinion, it's the opinion of various left-leaning commentators. My opinion is that their austerity policies have not been austere enough and also have not been complemented with proper regulatory reform that is necessary for the British economy to get back on its feet. I was hoping for some piece of reasoning or evidence. I already knew your opinion. On August 06 2011 11:23 DeepElemBlues wrote: It's pretty much common sense. Government can take on more debt than any kind of private institution, but even it has a limit (no pun intended). Unless you think that government can just endlessly take on debt without a care. And the economic results from Europe and the USA the last few days and months are indicative that we are near or have reached that limit. Unless, of course, Germany and France are dictating Greece around just for the hell of it. Definitely not because they're afraid if they keep trying to keep Greece from going down they might be pulled in too. What is the use or interpretation of your original statement if your statement has no definite interpretation. What do you mean by debt that is too much? 50 billion? 1 trillion? 10 trillion? As I acknowledged in my original reply - of course there's a limit. On August 06 2011 11:23 DeepElemBlues wrote:Why, what? Why should it have disabused them? Possibly because the Eurozone and the United States are in slow-motion economic crashes right now despite attempts to credit card their way out of their economic predicaments? So we're in X state right now. Do you have evidence that we'd be in a better state without the policies that we've had? On August 06 2011 11:23 DeepElemBlues wrote:We've tried these things and we're still fucked mostly as a result of these things. What is your evidence or reasoning for this? On August 06 2011 11:23 DeepElemBlues wrote:You can't get around the reality that the policies failed at their intended purpose and we are now in another debt crisis right on the heels of the last one. All we've done since then is take on more debt. So... what might the problem be, Mr. Economics Student? I don't know what the problem is. Neither do you, according to your complete lack of reasoning or evidence for all your beliefs that you've kindly shared with us today. On August 06 2011 11:23 DeepElemBlues wrote:Possibly, taking on more debt at a rate the market can not and will not sustain? What does this statement mean? Which market? What market isn't sustaining this? You then go on to talk about the Eurozone et al. I was actually only talking about the US, as this was the major talking point of this thread and you didn't mention that you were excluding the US from your claims. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15725 Posts
"Owners of capital will stimulate the working class to buy more and more of expensive goods, houses and technology, pushing them to take more and more expensive credits, until their debt becomes unbearable. The unpaid debt will lead to bankruptcy of banks, which will have to be nationalized, and the State will have to take the road which will eventually lead to communism" Karl Marx, Das Kapital, 1867 | ||
|
shinosai
United States1577 Posts
Economists said spend during 2008-9 and spend we did. It save us from certain depression. If you doubt the depression looke at the climate back then. Lehman, AIG were failing, credit was freezing. Trust in banks was falling, sound familar? Now that things are more or less stable, extreme right wing has the audacity to claim we didn't need that spending. They call it reckless. What they are doing is extremely reckless. (I don't have anything against the right, infact I think they are better at getting things done than the left, it's just the extreme that I do not like.) It didn't save us from depression. They just made another bubble (the bailout bubble) and it's going to pop and make things worse than they would have been if we simply let the market correct itself. It's not the recession/depression that is the problem, it's the cure. The economic boom is the problem. Trust in banks was falling. It should have! They made risky investments. They continue to do so. You think things are stable? They're about to fall apart and it's even worse now than it was going to be before. Spending money to stimulate the economy during recession only works if you saved money during the boom. We were already in debt. It made things better for a little bit but now they will be worse. | ||
|
arbitrageur
Australia1202 Posts
On August 06 2011 11:32 DeltaSigmaL wrote: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=abVpg8xJDMWk Gives you a sense of how bad things were http://money.cnn.com/2008/10/01/markets/markets_newyork/index.htm?postversion=2008100118 Companies jittery. Bailouts pass. No 2nd depression. You want me to believe everything would be all right if government didn't intervene and let company after company fall? Where's YOUR evidence? For some reason you think that I'm making a claim. I don't have to give you any evidence because I don't know the answer to these questions, unlike you it seems. You actually haven't provided any evidence for your beliefs. This is okay though, I didn't expect any. | ||
|
Sabu113
United States11075 Posts
On August 06 2011 11:36 shinosai wrote: It didn't save us from depression. They just made another bubble (the bailout bubble) and it's going to pop and make things worse than they would have been if we simply let the market correct itself. It's not the recession/depression that is the problem, it's the cure. The economic boom is the problem. Trust in banks was falling. It should have! They made risky investments. They continue to do so. You think things are stable? They're about to fall apart and it's even worse now than it was going to be before. Spending money to stimulate the economy during recession only works if you saved money during the boom. We were already in debt. It made things better for a little bit but now they will be worse. Is there anything in the last 70 years of Economic literature regarding crises that you would support? | ||
| ||
|
|
OSC
Solar vs MaxPax
ByuN vs Krystianer
Spirit vs TBD
OSC
Korean StarCraft League
OSC
OSC
OSC
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
Replay Cast
|
|
|
EPT
