Comments by "whyamimrpink78" (@whyamimrpink78) on "Rush Limbaugh Dropped To 3rd Tier Radio Stations" video.
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
el80ne What epic fail? You are the one who is so radical that you would blame Bush for anything. Recessions happen, the fact is that we are seeing a slow recovery from this recent one. This country has seen several recessions but they all, but two, were recovered from in around 5 years. The 2 that took the longest were the great depression and the current one. They were also the only ones where the federal government tried to "fix" it with massive spending, taxes and regulations. All the others involved little to no federal government involvement.
The pure fact is that Obama was a poor leader. I am not a Bush fan but he tried to do changes to prevent the recession but the Democrat congress wouldn't listen. It started, Bush left, and under Obama we have see stagnate recovery. We should be doing great now but we are not. You are trying the best you can to make Obama look good but he is a poor leader.
You blame Bush for 9/11 since it was under his watch. Well, why not blame Clinton for giving us a weak defense? Under Obama Isis was created, or do you want to blame Bush for that as well.
The pure fact is that you are a simpleton. You blame one guy, Bush for all these problems when they are more complex than that. My complaints of Obama is his poor leadership. I am not a fan of Bush but after 9/11, which would have happen under any president, he led us through it. If he was still president during the recession it would have been over quickly and recovered from, even while working with a democrat congress. But under Obama and his poor leadership we are still behind 7 year later.
You have a lot to learn. Being a simpleton like yourself makes life easy I know, I use to be on. Trust me, Bush wasn't great but Obama is far worse. Trying to make Bush out as being more competent cements your epic fail.
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
el80ne I guess you didn't catch my sarcastic tone.
Under FDR we saw a recession that lasted for over a decade. His programs expanded the size of the federal government leading to the current problems we have now.
FDR was very corrupt himself. He threaten to stack the courts in order to get his way and policies that one, violated the constitution, and two, were voted against less than 10 years prior passed due to FDR acting like a dictator.
What caused the crash was the Federal Reserve. It was created in 1913 (also around the time when the federal income tax became constitutional) and we ended seeing the largest recession ever with the slowest recovery. FDR supported expanding the role of the federal government and the Federal Reserve. That prolong the recovery.
To understand the market you have to realize that the market is actually like a bunch of ants operating under simple rules all connected in a complex way. The problem is that like ants they have intelligence without awareness. Thus they are easily manipulated and controlled under state power. That is how markets get destroyed.
Under FDR production maxed out which isn't natural. Rationing happened which hindered production. The government was making the assumption that a person or company needed X or Y to progress when that isn't so. They messed with currency which made it hard to get loans to invest. FDR having a strong control on the market made things worse.
During WWII FDR had to give in to businesses' demands and relax regulations so that they can produce to improve. The regulations FDR put in place hindered growth and when they were removed we grew. That is why after the war we saw growth, we had less regulations.
FDR was like Mao Zedong where he thought he can control the entire market universally which ended up leading to famine and disaster.
The simple fact is that, as I said, the market is like ants, intelligence but not awareness. The government takes advantage of that by messing with the market and promise simple things like jobs and more money which leads to destruction as in under FDR (who did what Hoover was doing as well). The market can't be predicted and can't be controlled, especially on the grand scale. But it can be manipulated and when the government does it and it falls apart, or even it just dips naturally (which happens with typically fast recovery) there are those in the government take advantage of that in order to get a job.
Under the recent recession Obama promised several things, one thing that did happen was that Congress got a raise. You are on one of those ants with no self awareness that believes that the government can create jobs. Well, technically it can, but like under FDR and Mao we don't see wealth creation and our problems compound.
You need to study up on the market more. It is very complex. Considering how you like to keep thing simple as in blame Bush for everything and use phrases such as "common sense" showing you have no justification for what you support I doubt you will study the market. But at least try.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
el80ne Under FDR was the first time we saw massive federal government involvement in the economy (really under Hoover but FDR expanded it more). Even under the recession the spending of FDR created growth, but only because because this country never experience such a market with a federal government having a strong hand in it.
After FDR pulled out in spending and job creation we had another recession. That is because the growth was artificial. FDR's programs didn't help at all, it just kicked the can down the road. The problems still existed. That is why under this most recent recession all the spending done by the fed. stopped the recession but didn't grow anything. Those who are intelligent knows that history repeats itself thus they know when the fed. pulls the plug that the economy will tank again. Federal government involvement in domestic issues of the economy doesn't help, it just compounds our problems.
Relaxing regulations did get us out of the recession. During the war there was a demand for more military weaponry (along with other things), private companies were able to produce more due to relax regulations. With relax regulations companies were able to invest to produce.
In the 30s government jobs went up but then fell in the 40s. We saw economic boom afterwards. The fact is that after years of strict regulations, unproductive jobs, and wasteful spending the economy was stagnate. The government spending during the war was on something other countries demanded. But in the 30s the increase in government spending that people didn't demand is what prolong the recession. According to you we should have spent more money on this most recent recession on just building buildings who serve no purpose when in reality is was spending like that which prolong the recession. That is why government spending on war doesn't contradict my point.
"Bottom line is that the Austrian and Real Business Cycle perspectives
you've been pushing where you blame everything on gov intervention and
regulation is an extreme minority position among modern day economists
for a reason."
Actually that is completely untrue. From CSUN
"The early-20th- century economist John Maynard Keynes advocated
a set of economic policy prescriptions that are now know as "Keynesianism."
The basic idea of Keynesianism (shorn of all the bells and whistles) is
that government can spend the economy out of a recession. It supposedly
works like this: The government spends a bunch of money on who knows what.
People receive that money as income. Then they spend a large chunk of that
income on other goods and services, and that money is someone else’s income.
Then they spend it on yet more goods and services, etc., etc. This is known
as the multiplier effect.
Although there are still some economists who support Keynesian policies,
it’s important for debaters to realize that Keynes’s theory is mostly dead
in the economics profession. The main reason Keynesian policy still gets
taught to undergrads is that, well, it’s easy to teach and understand.
But that doesn’t mean it’s right. Better macroeconomic models are much
more sophisticated, and I can’t fully describe them here. But the basic
flaw of Keynesianism is this: you have to ask where the government’s money
comes from in the first place. It can either tax, borrow, or print money.
If the government taxes, then that’s less money in people’s pockets, so
every dollar that the government spends is balanced by a dollar not spent
somewhere else. (Some Keynesians will say that taxpayers might choose to
save the money instead of spending it, which creates a "leakage." But saved
money is almost never just stuck in a mattress. Saved money gets lent out
by banks and used for investment.) If the government borrows, then it drives
up interest rates and crowds out private investment. And if the government
prints money, the value of the dollars people have goes down because of
inflation, so it’s almost identical to a tax.
Even economists who still believe the Keynesian theory (or some modernized
form of it) generally regard it as a short-run theory. In the long
run, spending by the government cannot increase the wealth of the economy
unless government actually spends the money more efficiently than would
the private sector. The more important long-run issue is the crowding out
of private investment that follows from government deficits.
"
You said this"And to think, as you appear to, that we could have recovered from a recession of this magnitude sooner by doing nothing"
We have had recession in the past before the great depression that we recovered from in around 5 years time. Take the Panic of 1837 for example. How come all these recessions that happen in the US we recover from quickly with little to no federal government involvement. But the two that took the longest to recover from had massive federal government involvement? There is a strong trend there. You really need to study history.
1
-
el80ne Well it is clear to see that you are very passionate about this. I can
break down how wrong you are and I can even do it simply by saying that
you made a claim without citing any sources. That claim was this
"Bottom line is that the Austrian and Real Business Cycle perspectives
you've been pushing where you blame everything on gov intervention and
regulation is an extreme minority position among modern day economists
for a reason. "
I actually gave a source for my reasoning in saying you are wrong. And while the source was weak it was a source non the less, more than you provided.
I am a very busy man so I will try to keep this short and hit a few points
" No one's saying that the government is trying to create wealth during
recessions. Duh. The point is to wait out recessions while mitigating
the worst effects and so people don't starve to death."
Recessions recover on their own, the market will balance out on it's own so people don't starve death. Spending money just to spend it (not creating wealth) ruins the value of the dollar and causes stagnate growth. Giving money away doesn't create more goods and services (food for example) thus people do starve to death. You can't consume what you don't produce. You need to remember that.
"Tripling the scale and scope of public infrastructure in roads and
bridges while building the Grand Cooley dam and electric grid to power
the nation is universally recognized as not only assisting the war
effort, but greasing the skids of capitalism for the private sector in
the prosperity that followed increasing capacity and facilitating
productivity. Only the ignorant would call that 'wasteful'. You have no
idea what you're talking about"
States and the private sector can (and in the past)will invest in that. If there is a demand for that bridge or dam than states and the private sector will build it and do so at a more affordable rate.
"The was no 'relaxing' of anything. So again, you fail to explain how WW2
does not directly contradict your claim that government jobs 'compounds
the problem'."
The federal government has always spent on foreign affairs, that type of spending has always been in the economy. Domestic spending by the federal level hasn't, especially at the scale FDR was doing. That is the difference. There was also a demand for such workers, that is also the difference when there wasn't a demand for that bridge and dam.
"I was already a step ahead of you in my last post explaining that the
double dip happened because FDR mistakenly attempted to balance the
budget and cut spending before the economy fully recovered. "
The economy didn't recover, it was all artificial. That is why it crashed so hard after he pulled the plug.
"And as my empirical proof I'll just point out that Sweden applied a
Keynesian solution to the Great Depression of government spending and
jobs and was the first country of all them to recover because they did
not end their spending prematurely. "
Sweden is a small country, smaller than most of our states. You can't make the comparison to the US. I actually support state and local governments getting involved in solving the problem because at that small of a scale you can actually manage funds better. But at the federal level you can't micromanage the complex economy like FDR tried to do which is why our problems compounded.
We are seeing this is other aspects of our country. The department of ed. created in 1980 is causing more problems, the federal income tax causes more problems, any federal government involvement in healthcare is making the problems worse (look at Obamacare and the numerous doctors quitting now). The federal min. wage has hurt small businesses in small towns where cost of living is low. A one size fits all policy doesn't work in a country of 300 million people. Sweden has less than 10 million. Consider that.
" But if you had ever taken a stat class, you'd know that no conclusions can be drawn from a sample size of 2"
I have a math minor and a physics degree and I am pursuing my PhD in physical chemistry. I am pretty sound in math and statistics. I am not drawing a conclusion from a sample size of two, there have been around 47 depressions in the US. That is a sufficient sample size.
"The economy suffered from weakness in aggregate demand, not because
government regulation was placing limits on expansionary pressure on the
supply side."
Demand is always there. There is always demand for better goods and services. But as I said earlier you can't consume what you don't produce. Giving away money and creating jobs that don't produce anything just ruins the value of the dollar because now more money is flowing but less is being created. The supply of money is greater but the supply of goods and services aren't. Demand is there and will always be there. If people don't have money than prices will drop. We have to work on developing wealth to develop more goods and services.
As I said i am a busy man and can't get into full detail. It is clear to me you are very passionate about this. You are either mislead or confused but passionate. As a whole I don't care what happens, I am well off, highly skilled and educated. I am also low key. I will have no problem finding work and getting by. If policy is created that causes another crash (most like from Keynesian economics) I will be fine. During the last recession I ended up buying a car and getting a higher paying job while others were losing their jobs and cars. While I want what is best for the country knowing I will do well, I will also do well if others don't. Which is why I am not as passionate as you are.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
el80ne I am not saying it is too complicated to understand. What you don't seem to understand is that in a complex system you need to break it down to solve it. That is problem solving, taking a complex problem and breaking it down.
What is clear is that you lack knowledge in problem solving to make a coherent argument on the topic. You are feeling that you can simply compare a country of only 9 million people, with a different history, society, educational system, economic system, that has different neighbors and is on the other side of the hemisphere to the US. And you boiled down that comparison to one thing, that they are supposedly more successful (that is debatable) simply because they practice Keynesian economics.
" Mandatory service creates a different mindset, SO WHAT? "
That means a lot. The mindset of the US citizen is different compared to other countries. One factor is military service for example. With increased discipline and being forced to be on the same level as others plays a role. The idea that you can remove that variable is just pure ignorance.
One of our major players in our economic system is entertainment. How much of a difference would it make if Lebron James, or Peyton Manning or Jonah Hill or other celebrities had to put their career on hold to serve in the military? The entertainment industry alone will be different. That is just one of several example.
" Only SOME countries have such policies and you still haven't said a
thing in explaining how SOME EU countries having mandatory enlistment
was a primary cause in the Eurozone triple fail."
That is another point. As I said, while those countries all use the same currency, they all have different laws and economic policies. The US can be the same way and has been for years until the great depression. We had a set currency but each state had their own economic policies and laws. The set currency was for foreign trade and interstate commerce.
Ever heard of the saying that "if you place every economist end to end they still wouldn't come up with a solution"? A main issue that I have with economists is that they simply are not problem solvers. Economics is actually very simple to grasp. I can walk into any econ. class right now and pass. I am confident on that based on my past experience. Studying economic theory is not a challenge, especially if you have a strong math background. What they don't practice is how to solve problems. There is a reason why that in 2004, according to the University of Wisconsin, that the most common major of CEOs was engineering. They are actual problem solvers.
You are showing a lot of ignorance by ignoring the differences involved in each country. Whenever I hear of an economist try to compare the US to another country I come very close to discrediting them. The reason why is because they are cherry picking what they what to push their propaganda. It is shown on both sides. Here an example.
http://speisa.com/modules/articles/index.php/item.454/sweden-to-become-a-third-world-country-by-2030-according-to-un.html
1
-
1
-
1
-
el80ne You simply can't micromanage it. The economy across the country is too complex. To problem solve you break it down. Like I said in comparison in education. You don't see one teacher teaching an entire school of 2000 students. You have different departments with department heads and teachers teaching different classrooms in a way that works for them. That is micromanaging.
I don't recall about Obamacare, but the simple fact was that during the Great Depression FDR's policies prolonged it, it is also the first time that there was a strong role by the federal government in trying to "fix" the economy.
The min. wage means nothing. It is a very small part of the economy. If you want to make a direct comparison on that cost of living is higher in Sweden, but we should avoid that. We have to look at the US. When the min. wage was higher there is an increase in teenage unemployment and a rise in prices. Also the min. wage was increased in the US around 2007, a time when the economy crashed. Overall raising the min. wage doesn't help the economy in that there isn't one single good reason to even have a min. wage. I say that when I try my best to take a moderate approach, but in all the min. wage doesn't " increased the ability of low-income people to spend money." The issue is that you can't consume what you don't produce. That is why the min .wage leads to jobs loss and increase prices in the US. As I said, we can't compare to other countries (even though they do have higher cost of living).
The US pumped money into the system and increased the deficit, it didn't help. We are seeing slow growth. We are behind. The recession stopped but around 2% growth following a recession is weak when we have seen around 5 to 7% in the past to catch us back up and then settled to around 3% or greater.
Under FDR we saw a double dip recession. You claim that he cut spending too soon. Well, when is a good time? The simple fact is that the recovery was artificial and him cutting spending in 5 years or 10 year or 15 years would have led to the same results. You are saying he cut too soon but you are not giving details on when he should have cut.
Spending on wasteful programs, as in programs people don't demand, hurts the economy. The federal government isn't in a position to determine what society demands. And if you look at our situation right now we have a large debt we haven't paid off. Name me one company that can be in this much debt for that long and still be in business? It is compounding our problems. The federal government increases the deficit, doesn't pay it off, and just kicks the can down the road. And when we get downgraded they sue. I really don't see how you don't see this as a problem.
1
-
el80ne Military spending is one, constitutional, and two, benefit the entire country equally. That is difference than if the federal government were to spend money on building a bridge where that individual state only benefits. Military spending is not as much as a waste, if at all compared to the federal government spending on domestic policies.
" that would require private ownership of public goods, a very bad idea, not to mention inefficient. "
How is that bad? There is a lot of private ownership of goods in the US. Most roads and bridges are funded locally, if that is what the state and the people of that state desire then so be it. But how is private ownership bad? You are making a statement without justification. You are doing a genetic fallacy.
"I also need to point out that this boom period occurred during a period
of high top tax rates and heavy financial regulations from the New Deal
reforms you eschew, "
Nobody paid those top tax rates. The tax reform bill in the 60s were designed to get the top to pay taxes. Nobody paid those top tax rates though, you need to realize that. Also regulations were relaxed to promote growth.
"Your mistake is that you think government should be run like a private business."
I never pushed for the idea of the government running like a business. One of the problems is that it doesn't have the pressure of being a business thus it can just raise the debt ceiling and kick our problems down the road thus compounding them.
"And again, saying the money spent during recessions is "not real" is bogus because it's a blind assertion"
It isn't real because it isn't spent on creating actual wealth, it isn't spent on what people demand to progress us.
You keep going to Sweden, you need to stop that. As I said you can't compare the US to Sweden. You need to look at the US. We spent a lot during the recession and we still haven't recovered.
You need to learn what money is. Money has no value until people give it value but spending on wealth creation. Just moving money means nothing, we can easily do that and get no where. Businesses will invest in wealth creation and if people have less money then prices will dropped. But the idea that we need to get money flowing is just wrong. That is why Keynesian doesn't work and a lot of economist don't take it serious. It goes against what money really is. If all it took was more money flowing then why not mail people paper plates with $1 trillion written on it. We will all be trillionaires and will be fine. We can put it in the federal reserve and pay off our dept. So why don't we do that?
1
-
el80ne Roads for postal communications is constitutional as well. You have to look at that. The constitution is put in place to keep the governments in check. The federal government was to have a lot of limits to it to where it were to have very limited involvement in domestic policies, if any at all.
I have driven on toll roads, they are the best roads you can drive on. And no, they don't cause congestion. What has caused congestion are public freeways in urban areas. Plus it is up to the local community if they want a toll road or not. There are benefits for both. But to say they cause massive congestion is a lie. You can get a fast pass or something similar.
Also, you don't think the government can become a monopoly? It basically has. Big businesses do use the federal government in their favor. Who bailed out the banks during the last recession? It was privatization, it was the federal government. Also consider how laws that are sold to benefit the people actually help out a business with political connections. Monopolies are driven by lack of competition due to a government in their favor.
I agree we can have balance, that is why I support state rights.
On tax rates, there is a Learn Liberty video entitled
"Will Higher Tax Rates Balance the Budget? "
It explains how higher tax rates didn't lead to higher revenue.
I never said Bush was a good president. Was he better than some? Yes, especially compared to Obama. But he wasn't that great.
You have to remember that congress approved the war and funding for it. That we are the country making the strongest push to promote peace. Having several friends and family members in the military the fact is that we spend more money in promoting peace in the world. I sometimes wish we will pull out of other countries and when the world struggles people will come crying for our help. The war isn't pointless and it is constitutional. Obamacare, for example, isn't. Neither is the New Deal. While I do agree that we spend too much on the military, to say the war was superfluous is being shallow. It was at least constitutional.
I don't like you bringing up Sweden because it is a smoke screen to show what you really don't know. Sweden just recently got rid of mandatory military. Do you want to be forced to serve in the military? You never mention that when you bring up other countries' success. We had the draft in WWII. How about we bring that back. Force others to join the military. That will make a huge difference as well.
My point is that you are cherry picking what you want to push your propaganda. I can point towards Cuba or N. Korea. They have strong centralized governments. Or Russia during the USSR days. But you turn a blind eye on what doesn't fit your narrative. So again, stop with the Sweden.
Also, I pointed you towards an article saying how Sweden will be a 3rd world country by 2050. Now I admit it was cherry picking as well, but it does prove a point that people can be just as shallow as you are and push their propaganda.
The private economy boomed after WWII because of relaxed regulations and limited federal government involvement in domestic issues as I have been saying. Military spending is constitutional and benefits all equally. Domestic spending by the federal government doesn't. That is the difference. That is why the New Deal prolonged the depression but military spending didn't.
"Having money circulate inspires more confidence to spend than economic
paralysis because people can't spend what they literally don't have and
businesses aren't going to risk default and go into debt to expand when
they're not bringing in revenue. "
Ok, then why not created trillion dollar bills? Because the economy is far more complex then money spending. Money has zero value until it is used on wealth creation. You can't eat money, you can't heat your home off of it. You can go to work on money or where it. We can have more money flowing but if goods and services are not being created then that money loses value. That is why Keynesian economics doesn't not work. It doesn't create wealth. It just compounds our problems.
Under FDR we saw a increase in debt we never paid off. We saw 45% of the population be dependent on federal money. Our problems got worse. It is funny how the war forced him to change course and him dying is what got us on the right track.
1
-
el80ne I am calling FDR's programs wasteful for 2 reasons. One is that like defense spending you can take it too far. Another is that his New Deal was wasteful and didn't help everyone equally. It was unconstitutional. His domestic policies were the problem. The military spending wasn't a major problem along with roads in that every president has done it. His problem was the New Deal and strict regulations on business hindering growth.
In 1932 we didn't have cars that were easily accessible that could go 60+ MPH. Not a valid comparison.
You are pointing towards roads as a reason to have government run public goods. Roads are basically the only concrete thing government can provide. If you look at the federal budget you see that roads is a very small portion of the budget, almost non existent. Mean while they have gained power and have then become bought out. You are saying that we are less of a democracy and the exact reason why is that we have a weaker local government and a stronger federal government. The more local government is the more it represents the people thus the more of a democracy it is. That is what the founding fathers wanted and that is what FDR destroyed.
Watch the video
"Milton Friedman Crushes Man's 3 Questions like Dixie Cups"
He explains how at the federal level you create a problem where with the government running the goods you feel they should do X but I feel they should do Y, because those goods are just as much as mine as they are yours.
Also, if you look at the US, the US has never created as much wealth as private companies have. A great example is the internet. While a typical argument from the left is that the government created it. While that is debatable what isn't is that the private sector is what made the internet what it is today. The private sector made it high speed, made google, youtube, wikipedia etc. That is because there is competition which means less chance of a monopoly. With the government you get monopolies.
You want to give the federal government more power but then complain when they get bought out. That is the exact problem we have. The federal government has too much power. You want it to represent the people when you need to realized that the federal government never has represented the the people. That is why the founding fathers wanted a limited federal government. The more local government is the more it represents the people.
Think of all the people that didn't vote for Obama. Think of how I don't like Sanders, Pelosi or other representatives in the US congress. I can't vote for them and neither can you. So they don't represent you.
The powers of the federal government were to be limited. You want them to do X, Y and Z, where someone else, in your position, what them to do A, B and C. So we allow them to have that power and then corporations buy them out and then the federal government does neither.
You have a fallacy that you feel what you want out of government is what the majority wants, and that we must have it for all. That is completely wrong though. What you want is what you want. Maybe some other want it and there is nothing wrong with that. But you do that at the local level. You don't force it down people's throats at the federal level and then complain when others do it back.
This country was designed to have limitations on government especially the larger it is, as in from local to state and then state to federal. The fed. was to have strict limitations where the local governments were to have more freedom so the people can use it to their benefit. That is different from place to place. But what you are doing is no different then some CEO using the federal government to their advantage. You just cry because you are being oppressed instead of the CEO.
"The Supreme Court begs to differ. Obamacare passes muster of
constitutionality because it's a tax and federal taxation is
Constitutional."
The SC has been wrong before. Look up Kelo vs. New City of London for example.
As I said, I don't care what happens in Sweden. A country with a different history, society and a population of 9 million is not comparable to the US. Also I see you continue to ignore the article I pointed you towards about Sweden becoming a 3rd world country (a rather ridiculous argument but one that exists that you choose to ignore). So yes, your Sweden example is a smoke screen to what actually happened in the US.
The New Deal took money from certain individuals and gave to those who didn't do as much work. It oppressed one group of people domestically to benefit others. It didn't help all equally. Several regulations were not equal as well. Take the min. wage for example. Cost of living is different throughout the US. Even if you look at the current situation $7.25/hr is different in different areas. I have seen small businesses suffer in rural areas due to the federal min. wage increase. A one size fits all policy simply is not equal. You feel it is because as I said, you want it. But the simple fact it isn't equal. The founding fathers ran into this with only 13 states, it holds true today.
With military spending that benefits people equally in that it defends the entire country. But with the federal government doing domestic policies it doesn't become equal. Giving more money to one state or taking from others just because they have more money is not equal. It is oppression. But you support that system and then proceed to complain when those with resources, corporations and the rich, buy out the federal government to use to their advantage. Are you starting to see the problem?
" A civilian does not lose his/her ability to purchase food with money
just because their check was funded by government stimulus. "
Yes they do, it is called debasing the currency. It is on different then printing a trillion dollar bill and giving it to people. It is giving money to people but not creating wealth with it. It is how the Romans fell.
We are seeing an increase in poverty. While I agree that inflation is flawed, we are seeing prices go up in areas where they shouldn't. Food for example is going up when it shouldn't. Gas is the same way. We are seeing a growing income gap. Just giving money away doesn't improve the economy. You did contradict yourself. You support a stimulus but then don't support the creation of trillion dollar bills. So which is it? Do you want a stimulus or not?
What you have to learn, though, is that the problems stem from the federal government having too much power. You want the federal government to do what it wants but then complain when others use it in a way they want (electing Bush for example, or the rich buying it out). But remember, that is the system you wanted. I want a system of a stronger more local government. So I can complain about the system. You complain when the government doesn't work in your favor oppressing others you want to oppress but instead you get oppressed.
You really need to learn what the real problem is.
1
-
el80ne There is a lot of evidence that shows that the unconstitutional New Deal has hindered economic growth. It has also compounded our problems. As I said, 45% of US citizens became dependent on federal money.
You have this as well
"We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever
spent before and it does not work....We have never begun to tax the
people in this country the way they should be.... I don't pay what I
should. People of my class don't. People who have it should pay....
After eight years of this administration we have just as much
unemployment as when we started...and an enormous debt to boot!"
That was said by Henry Morgenthau Jr.
On the min. wage. Yes there was "no discernible effect on employment." I agree. That is because the min. wage has been low in respect to the entire economy and has been raised at a low rate. It has a small role in the complex economy. Nothing positive comes from it. All the negative that comes from it gets lost in the statistical noise due to other variables. If you were to do analysis to remove that noise then you see unskilled unemployment goes up, especially in the youth. That is because that is the area that is effected by the min. wage the most.
A comparison on how the min. wage plays a small role in overall, I repeat, overall employment I will use my home state. We have a min. wage above the federal at $8.25/hr. We are a very tax friendly state. We just got a business to open here that starts out at $26/hr. When they came to open the business and create jobs were they focusing on the min. wage or the low taxes and regulations? Think about it. We do have a youth unemployment problem in our state as well though.
So when they say "no discernible effect on employment" it is a play on words, basically a smoke screen to say "there is a negative effect, but it is small that it is ignored." But in the end nothing positive comes from it.
You have a problem with special interest in federal politics and I am telling you it is because they have power that can be bought. Money in politics won't be a problem if the federal government has none that can be bought to begin with. With a smaller more local government you have a stronger representation. I live in a city of 500,000 people. I have met both our the candidates for mayor. I know workers for the DMV personally. At my home town I knew the sheriff and the man who ran against him. Heck I drank beer with one.
I have never met Obama. I have never met the head of the FBI. I have never met my congressmen. Do they represent me? No. As Milton Friedman said, you have to keep government as local as possible to see if it actually works for you. Government isn't all bad. It can be really good. But you have to see that it remains the servants for society and not the masters.
I agree we need regulations on corporations, but it needs to come from the state and local level, not the fed. where it scares businesses overseas or ends up having the corporations buy out the politicians that don't represent us.
"Candidates that don't represent corporate interests don't have a chance
of getting elected because the cost of entry to being a viable candidate
is exorbitant and can only be funded by special interest money. It
doesn't matter which party is in charge. Like I said, we've crossed the
threshold into plutocracy. "
We crossed that threshold because we allowed the federal government to be bought. We gave it power that can be bought. This is why the founding fathers wanted a limited federal government. They saw a time where if it had too much power it can become corrupt.
"I disregarded the speia article because it was so dissimilar to what I'm
doing that it seemed ludicrous you were even trying to compare our
methods. "
Or maybe it goes against your propaganda. As I said, and you did this with the min. wage. You like to cherry pick what you like to push your propaganda. Who cares what Sweden does in the end? That is Sweden. Look at what is going on in the US. Keynesian simply does not work. The data shows it. You are dismissing evidence and using a word game to push what you support and make up something that simply isn't true. You are going on to say things as " unfair labor laws". What is "unfair" to you? As I said, you want to push your idea of what is fair and not and what is right and what is wrong on others through force of the federal government. You want to force others to do what you think is right. That is the definition the fascism.
The difference between you and me is how we approach a problem. If you really knew what I stand for you will realize that I do support a lot of government programs. Not as much as you but I do support a lot. The thing is that I support them at the local level. If you want completely public roads then so be it. In my state we have that and it works great. I grew up in the midwest before I moved out and in KS they have the turnpike, a toll road. It worked great as well. Why should I force KS to change? Why should KS force my state to change? If you want your Keynesian economics at your state and local government then so be it. Why should I stop you? At the same time why should you stop me from living in a state that I agree with economically? A state of low taxes and business regulations?
The pure fact is that you are being a fascist. You are so desperate in being right that you will go at great lengths to try to prove it. The real honest answer is that there is no one form of government that is "right". That is what the founding fathers saw in the past and that is what it is like now. That is why state rights is important. It allows for change and development that works for the people and not the few. You want a government that works for the few, you being one of them. I want a government that works for as many as possible if not all. That is the difference between you and me.
"I'm talking about targeted short term stimulus funded by deficit spending "
As I said, you are talking about kicking the can down the road. We are still in debt, we now after FDR have people still dependent on federal money. It isn't short term. And it isn't free money. A stimulus package is the same as printing money, especially now since the government has a credit card.
1
-
el80ne "How would he know at that point when he was yet to see what the
successful affects of the military Keynesianism of war spending was to
have on the economy?"
So now you are admitting that it wasn't FDR's New Deal and domestic spending that got us out of the recession but instead the war. Congratulations, there is hope for you yet.
As I said with military spending, it is constitutional and it effects everyone equally. With the world at war there was a demand for the federal government to spend on a constitutional program and it did and it drove us out of the depression. It also shifted FDR's focus from domestic issues to foreign issues. Thus with him no longer tampering with domestic issues the economy was allowed to grow.
That was the point of Morgenthau's quote, FDR's domestic spending didn't do anything but compound our problems. I am quite proud that you are starting to learn.
"FDR was too cost conscious of wanting to keep budgets balanced to try a
full throated measure that would have resembled a true Keynesian policy
prescription"
Yep, he balanced the budget so much that he increased the debt.
" But if you don't like Sweden look at Germany's successful application
of stimulus to combat the Great Depression then. If you want a more
recent example look at China's Keynesian application to the downturn"
Germany was a fascist country then that attacked a group of people. Do you support that? Should we go after one group of people, say Asians for example? Blame them for our problems and create a genocide?
China under Mao was a disaster. Right now China is not a great place to work at. Not a strong comparison. But in both China and Germany you are once again cherry picking what you want to push your propaganda. As I said with Germany, do you want to eliminate a race of people while you are at it?
" Austerity measures by and large actually do prolong recessions and do more harm than good. "
But yet in this entire country's history every recession except for 2 took around 5 years to recover from and it involved little to no federal government involvement. The two that took the longest to recover from were the great depression and now. They also were also times when the federal government did the most in trying to "fix" the economy as in more spending, more government jobs, more regulations. I am sorry but the facts are not on your side here.
" Like I said, Obama's stimulus was weak as it wasn't close to enough,
and vanishes when you look at it closely. Take state and local cutbacks
into account and basically, all it did was keep overall fiscal policy
from being outright contractionary."
Then how much should the federal government spend? You said it wasn't enough even though he double the debt. Also the debt is still growing. As I said it is compounding our problems. We have a very slow recovery and now we have just doubled our debt. That isn't a success story. I guess we should have spent enough to triple our debt. Is that what you want?
Federal spending over 20% when it was under 20% before 2008. State spending just recently dropped down to under 9% of GDP before going over in 2008. Local spending just went under 10% before just going over 10% in 2006. Where are these cuts you are complaining about?
Government jobs are growing. Where are the cuts? You are saying the government did not spend enough but yet the debt continues to grow along with government jobs at both the state and local level.
Friedman, as in the video I was pointing you towards, supported smaller more local government. I did as well. I never said that a government shouldn't do anything. I said the federal government shouldn't do anything. Friedman supported state and local government involvement. All that Friedman quote does is support my case
"Maybe you could answer me this riddle then. Why is it that the states
most dependent upon federal money are all low tax republican states? "
That point has been debunked several times. It is why you never hear about it from any credible person. For examples if you were to look at the list of states who receive more federal government money half of the top 10 have democrat governors. Not really red. Louisiana who has a republican governor right now has a history were around 2/3 of their governors were democrat.
I can go on and you can find articles on it, but what you did right there was cherry pick again. You are starting to lose a lot of credibility.
You can read this article
http://smallhold-pioneerpreppy.blogspot.com/2012/11/the-myth-of-red-state-welfare.html
It cherry picks as well, but shows how easy it is to debunk your foolishness now. You are starting to get to a new low.
"And I am telling you, you are underestimating the power of money to buy state government too."
At the state level you have more control of the government and you also have the ability to move and remain a US citizen. You are basically saying "corruption happens, deal with it and live under the government I want". I am saying, as Friedman said, that at the state and local level you have more control over the government. Corruption in almost non-existent at the state level and any that exist is quickly nipped in the butt.
"I also see shortcomings to your approach. It's great for the most
populous states like California, when they can pass laws regulating
carbon emission in vehicles for instance, and because of its population
numbers have the entire auto industry change their manufacturing of cars
sold to Californians so they can get into compliance and do business in
the state. But let's not kid around, what's a state like Rhode Island
to do except hurt their own interests by passing a law like that?"
And that is up to that state. Every state has different issues to deal with. MO has some of the lightest DUI laws in the nation due to them having that beer company in St. Louis donate money to the state. They are around average in DUI related deaths so it isn't a large problem. Utah has strict alcohol laws due to their population wanting it. Nevada has light gambling laws and legal prostitution in certain counties. CA has laws banning fireworks due to the droughts it goes through. Not one state is the same. If the citizens of a state want certain laws to be put in place then they can do it. If it works then great, if not then so be it. Every state is different. They just have to follow the constitution. A one size fits all policy will not work. There isn't a shortcoming in my approach. There is nothing but shortcoming in your approach.
"Pointing to a country that appears to have successfully applied an economic model is not 'propaganda'. "
It is when you pick the reasons why they are "successful". Every country is vastly different. As I said, you can't compare the US to any other country. You really need to stop that.
As with the min. wage, I didn't cherry pick anything. What I said holds true. Nothing positive comes from it. If it did and there wasn't any effect on employment, then why not $50/hr? You need to take a statistics course as well to learn how something minor as the min. wage gets lost in the complex economy. And you need to learn how to remove other variables to see the negative effects of it and how it has zero positive effects.
Noticed how your article on it tried to compare the min. wage to overall employment when the average worker earns over $24/hr? That is being very deceptive.
"WTF is all this even about? When did I say you should be forced to change?"
Easy, you demand that the federal government control domestic policies. You want them to have a large control on roads and infrastructure. You want to create a centralized government and weaken state rights. That is also you being a fascist. You even made the shallow claim in that "red states" (something that is hard to define) have failed policies and thus need to be fixed by the fed. To you they are failing, to the people living there they are not. You want to create your form of government which isn't wrong. It becomes wrong when you want to force the entire nation to live under it instead of doing it at the state and local level.
I agree that Bush didn't do much that well. But he did spend a lot on the military which according to you should create an economic boom.
1
-
el80ne You see, I never said do nothing. If you were to actually read what I wrote you would know that I support government action as long as it is at the state and local level. Friedman feels the same what. You come at me with a Friedman quote feeling that you are holding a handful of aces, but in reality it shows how little you understand Friedman.
If you watch the video I pointed you towards you will see that he supports government like I do. But it has to be as local as possible to see that it actually works for the people.
Seriously, watch the video. It is entitled
"Milton Friedman Crushes Man's 3 Questions Like Dixie Cups"
You have never addressed it so I am assuming you have not watched it. Not surprising considering how you like to cherry pick and twist words around to fit your propaganda.
You said FDR's New Deal helped out. When I showed it didn't you then claimed it didn't go far enough. You never then say how far they should go. Friedman addresses that issue as well in the video in how government spending and jobs don't always work, especially at the federal level.
Also I showed you how in this recent recession we haven't cut spending or government jobs in that spending and government jobs are growing at both the federal and local level. Same with debt. As I said, it just keeps compounding our problems.
"Just as there was demand for the federal government to get the country
out of the Great Depression too, and there was strong demand by the
masses for the government to do something."
There isn't a demand for the federal government to do something. What makes you think they have too? Do you think the states and people can't solve the problem on their own? That is what you are alluding to. We have had recessions in the past and without federal government action we have recovered quickly. There isn't a demand for the government to do something. If there were then why don't they do something all the time to avoid recessions? Your thought process is completely wrong.
"First of all, it's only your opinion the New Deal is unconstitutional."
Uh no. Such programs were ruled unconstitutional until FDR threaten to stack the courts with judges. FDR was being a dictator at the time to get his unconstitutional policies passed. The New Deal violates the 10th amendment and isn't supported by any amendments. Learn some history.
"The average person welcomed FDR's programs or wanted him to do more and
couldn't give two shits about the constitutionality when they're just
trying to put food on the table"
And the average person is not that smart. That is why the founding fathers developed the constitution. It was designed to place strict limitations on the federal government so it can't become too powerful and take advantage of an ignorant, emotional populous. After you have been shown FDR's policies failed you are trying to justify your stance on his policies because the average person wanted it. The average person wanted war during the Bush years as well. So I guess his wars are justified according to you.
"Government spending going from a measly 3% of GDP, ramping up to 14%,
and maxing out at 55% GDP with the country going to FULL EMPLOYMENT"
Friedman addresses that in the video as well. Paying people to dig holes and not creating wealth does not grow the economy which is why we had a slow recovery. Cuba has low unemployment as well.
You blame me for cherry picking when you love to remove all variables that don't suit you.
"Once again, the FED COMPLETELY FUCKED UP MONETARY POLICY"
I agree. That is why the fed. should not be involved in domestic policies. Under FDR we say the federal government grow and federal government spending grow. I keep hearing your complain about austerity. I guess in your definition austerity is not being fiscally reckless enough. We didn't practice austerity under Hoover or FDR. When the depression started in 1929 Mellon supported Hoover in more government spending on construction. That started a chain reaction of less austerity and the longest recovery from a recession ever.
As I said before, learn some history.
By what you said as well it appears that Friedman didn't support the Fed, and I agree. As I said, the federal government tampering with domestic policies is causing these problems. There seem to be a common denominator in what I am saying. It seems the Fed. is causing all these problems.
"You sound like a chicken little debt alarmist. Did you do your homework
assignment I gave you by studying the history of our national debt? What
happened to past debts? If you want to complain about debt, start by
learning about it first."
Well you never seem to do the homework assignments I give you. I know the history of debt. It is compounding our problems. I know you don't like to think so. If it isn't such a big deal then why didn't the federal government give out a $100 trillion stimulus package? I mean, according to you we will be doing great.
"You're high. The size of the federal work force has been shrinking since 2011"
That isn't true. Now I imagine you will cherry pick a stat showing cuts of jobs after 2010, that is because a lot of temporary employees were hired for the census. Federal government employees are higher in this decade then in the past decade and in the 90s.
" As if the party of the governor determines the political leanings of
the populace. Louisiana is a deep red state and everyone knows it. "
CA is number one in poverty if you factor in cost of living. That is consider a "deep blue" state if you want to play that game. Or you can try to be intelligent and consider that you really can't determine what is a "blue" or "red" state. If Louisiana was so "deep red" then it would have had republican governors in it's history.
Once again, learn some history.
I cry "cherry picking" because that is what you do. I give out other sides of the story and clearly admit I am cherry picking. I do so just to show how easy it is to be just as dumb as you and play your games but just give the opposite results. As you did with the whole "red state blue state" thing. It is simply to show how shallow you are. I admitted that the source I gave you was cherry picking. I admitted that you can't determine if a state is red or blue. Heck, CA had a republican governor recently. I can't say that is even blue. My state is considered blue even though we have a republican governor and a republican senator. Really, you need to stop being so shallow even though it does make arguing with you easy and entertaining (but also sad that someone is willing to be this stupid this long).
"If a company is able to improve efficiency to compensate for incurring a
higher cost, the benefit is to those unskilled workers earning higher
wages dumbass."
If those workers are earning a higher wage but not producing more then the company either has to raise prices or cut hours. Something has to give. That is econ. 101.
"There are long term benefits to a company improving efficiency and low
earners are going to be spending any extra money, which benefits the
economy. "
And you don't think companies don't know that? Also, if low earners have extra money but there are not more goods and services being produced then prices will go up. Once again, econ. 101. It harms the economy.
Christina Romer even admitted a min. wage increase to $9/hr won't add much at all to the economy. That is assuming if they don't lose their jobs. But as other stats. have shown people do.
You can be as myopic as you want, that is fine with me. As I said earlier in the big picture I really don't care. I don't care if poverty goes up if we have ignorant people like getting their way (it has gone up under Obama). I don't care that we have long recovery after recessions like we did under FDR thanks to ignorant people like you. I am highly skilled and high intelligent. I will always have a job and income. I will always be well off. And I will just sit back and think that this is what society wanted, socialism and a failed economy. History repeats itself. Honestly about the best I can most likely wish for is another FDR so then people can see their ignorant ways and go back to less federal government.
So my suggestion to you is to learn history and learn economics. Start with history 101 and econ. 101.
BTW I get paid well to educate college students for a living. I just gave you this less for free. You are welcome.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1