Bad Economics

[tbombz]

Classic Broken Window Fallacy, you need an education son.  How many times does this have to be said: Government spending does NOT in any way stimulate the economy.  Please refrain from making comments on economic topics from this point forward, thanks.

 

when you take an economics class the professor will be kind enough to explain the limitations of classical economics to you.

governent spending goes directly into the economy, directly creates jobs. now, if the money the government spent came from taxes on people who would have otherwise spent that money, then sure.. government spending would not boost economic activity. but thats not the case, see, most government tax revenue comes from people and businesses who normally SAVE their money, not spend it. by taxing these people and then spending that money on public works and other things economic activity is directly boosted.

swallow that and keep it down.

Are you fucking retarded? Let me answer that for you: yes you are and your grasp of this topic isn't even at the elementary level.

I don't blame the government for not doing something to make things better, I blame them for fucking this whole thing up to begin with.  Would we have had to raise the debt ceiling if the government didn't bail out the failed banks with tax payers money? No.

Also why you are at it, please name ONE SINGLE government program that's not in the red?  This whole idea of the government taking care of you is what brings countries to their knees.  In case you forgot, it was one of the main reasons why our founding fathers split off from England, or did they not teach that in junior high?

would we have had to raise the debt ceiling without the bailout? well, since most of the bailout money has already been paid back and since that bailout has helped keep the economy, and thus tax revenues, at a higher rate than it would have been otherwise... yes, yes we still woudl have had to raise the debt ceiling.   

americans came here and then eventually split from england because of religious persecution, a general lack of freedom and oppurtunity, and because of taxation without representation. wher eyou got the idea that we didnt want to be part of a society that uses the government as a resource pool to better the lives of everyone... i am clueles.


 

[Coach is Back!]

 

the government didnt mismanage our money

 the reason we are in so much debt is systemic failure of american society and the world as a whole.

 millions of irresponsible people taking out mortgages they couldnt afford, a financial system run by people who only care about turning out a short term profit even when it means bankruptcy in the long term, radical islamists thinking violence is the way of god, business owners who outsource good manufacturing jobs to countries where they can a pennies on the dollar, a fear of telling children that some people are smarter than other people and holding back the entire education system in an attempt to make everyone feel special.... etc etc.

sure, you can blame "the government" for not doing something to make things better, for allowing these things to come to fruition, but the government is the only outlet we have to organize together and to improve our situation and the notion that less government is better government and that any government attempt to improve society is bound to fail o even make things worse is detrimental to progress in a profound way.

You're out of league in this thread. This is for people actually work and contribute to society without purposely draining the system and depending on the people who actually do contribute. Depending on the government = LAZY

[Emmortal]

when you take an economics class the professor will be kind enough to explain the limitations of classical economics to you.

And when you get out of economics class into the real world you'll realize that economics professors have little grasp on the economy and why it doesn't work out like it does on paper.

governent spending goes directly into the economy, directly creates jobs. now, if the money the government spent came from taxes on people who would have otherwise spent that money, then sure.. government spending would not boost economic activity. but thats not the case, see, most government tax revenue comes from people and businesses who normally SAVE their money, not spend it. by taxing these people and then spending that money on public works and other things economic activity is directly boosted.

It's been proven time and time again that government jobs such as those created for the purpose of infrastructure have a negative return on investment.  On top of negative ROI the jobs are temporary leaving no long term real means of benefit to the economy.  Where you get the patently false idea that government tax income is derived through savings accounts of peoples and business from is mind boggling.  Go read about Japan's tremendous losses they incurred when building roads throughout the countryside which they believed would cause more transportation and increase goods and services between rural areas, when in fact they just became ghost roads that no one used and ended up costing more to maintain than what little they did to boost economic growth.

You have a lot to learn, and this isn't a topic you are well versed in.

would we have had to raise the debt ceiling without the bailout? well, since most of the bailout money has already been paid back and since that bailout has helped keep the economy, and thus tax revenues, at a higher rate than it would have been otherwise... yes, yes we still woudl have had to raise the debt ceiling.   

Please just stop posting

i am clueles.
 

That sums it all up.  You fall once again into the trap of reading a few papers or books about a topic and believing you have all the answers.  You ran down the same exact course when you started doing steroids and it only took you 4 years to figure out the truth.  Hopefully you'll pull your head out of your ass faster than that this time around.

[tbombz]

You're out of league in this thread. This is for people actually work and contribute to society without purposely draining the system and depending on the people who actually do contribute. Depending on the government = LAZY

im out of my league in an economics discussion because of my employment status? last time i checked ad hominem doesnt hold any weight in academia. (since you probably dont know what ad hominem is, let me explain.. attacking the character of the person giving an argument is unrelated to the argument itself)

if you have some rebuttal or talking point related to economics please, go ahead, lay them on the table.

[Coach is Back!]

Here's the deal Benny, seriously. I don't believe for one second you analyze financials, it's complete bullshit, call me judgemental I don't give a fuck. If you keep borrowing to pay off old debts you still have to pay back what you borrowed at a premium. You cannot keep raising the debt because all you do is dig deeper and deeper just like this administration is doing. THIS COMMONSENSE..THIS IS ECON 101.

Here ya go Tbombz. have a listen of what emmortal has to say as well.

[tbombz]

And when you get out of economics class into the real world you'll realize that economics professors have little grasp on the economy and why it doesn't work out like it does on paper.

It's been proven time and time again that government jobs such as those created for the purpose of infrastructure have a negative return on investment.  On top of negative ROI the jobs are temporary leaving no long term real means of benefit to the economy.  Where you get the patently false idea that government tax income is derived through savings accounts of peoples and business from is mind boggling.  Go read about Japan's tremendous losses they incurred when building roads throughout the countryside which they believed would cause more transportation and increase goods and services between rural areas, when in fact they just became ghost roads that no one used and ended up costing more to maintain than what little they did to boost economic growth.

You have a lot to learn, and this isn't a topic you are well versed in.

Please just stop posting


That sums it all up.  You fall once again into the trap of reading a few papers or books about a topic and believing you have all the answers.  You ran down the same exact course when you started doing steroids and it only took you 4 years to figure out the truth.  Hopefully you'll pull your head out of your ass faster than that this time around.

you just posted a bunch of stuff but none of it is related at all to the discussion at hand.

japan built roads in places where roads werent needed?  and this proves something about the viability of infrastucture spending. yeah, cuz thats the plan here in america too.   negative return on investment? are you kidding? what exactly are we trying to market here? we arent spengding money on t.v. commercials, were creating jobs and building roads. what kind of return on ivestment are you looking for? are the roads supposed to make money?   the size of the bailout? unrelated to its effectiveness at keeping the economy going and unrelated to the fact that MOST OF IT HAS ALREADY BEEN PAID BACK.  

[Coach is Back!]

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

[tbombz]

the debt is your only argument coach? you realize that it means jack shit?  the whole "debt crisis" was a poltically manufactured issue. tea partyers got elected on their less government ideology and so they started a war about it. in reality we could go without any spending cuts, keep on increasing the debt, and so long as the economy turns around in the future everything would be just fine. we could chalk up 20, 30, 50 trillion in debt and it wouldnt matter so long as the world financial system is tied up in ours.. nothign will ever happen to us because if it did it would effect everyone else.

put that in your pipe and smoke it ya dumb fuck.

[Coach is Back!]

the debt is your only argument coach? you realize that it means jack shit?  the whole "debt crisis" was a poltically manufactured issue. tea partyers got elected on their less government ideology and so they started a war about it. in reality we could go without any spending cuts, keep on increasing the debt, and so long as the economy turns around in the future everything would be just fine. we could chalk up 20, 30, 50 trillion in debt and it wouldnt matter so long as the world financial system is tied up in ours.. nothign will ever happen to us because if it did it would effect everyone else.

put that in your pipe and smoke it ya dumb fuck.

You stupid little prick, do you even come close to realizing what you're saying? You haven't even hit puberty when Bush was elected (you were 10) and you had no idea who he even was until a couple of years ago and even then you only read about him and Clinton. Next to Benny you're one one of the most ignorant fucks on here. Who supposed to pay for that debt? Treasonous little freeloading bastard!

[Emmortal]

you just posted a bunch of stuff but none of it is related at all to the discussion at hand.

japan built roads in places where roads werent needed?  and this proves something about the viability of infrastucture spending. yeah, cuz thats the plan here in america too.   negative return on investment? are you kidding? what exactly are we trying to market here? we arent spengding money on t.v. commercials, were creating jobs and building roads. what kind of return on ivestment are you looking for? are the roads supposed to make money?   the size of the bailout? unrelated to its effectiveness at keeping the economy going and unrelated to the fact that MOST OF IT HAS ALREADY BEEN PAID BACK.  

It's all related to the discussion which you completely fail to see.  You avoided the other questions I pose, which for obvious reason if you were to address them would make the premise of your very argument crumble.

Did you even look at the chart I posted which shows exactly how much of bailouts have been paid back or did you neglect to read it at all?  Trillions went out, a fraction has been paid back.  Explain exactly how you've come to this assessment that it's been paid.  Here's another link just to show that you are completely wrong on this subject:

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/need-to-know/economy/the-true-cost-of-the-bank-bailout/3309/

And lets not even bring up the underperforming failed policies of QE1 and 2.  Go back to your econ prof with that.

Bill Buckler has an excellent blurb about these issues:

Putting The Cart On Top Of The Horse:

For a human lifetime, since the 1930s in the US and across the developed world, the health and “growth” of an economy has been “measured” by how much has been consumed. Part of this consumption, it is true, is the natural result of prior production. But over the decades, an increasing proportion of it has been done by means of borrowed money. Worse still, the calculations of economic “growth”  have included consumption by government. Government, by its nature, produces NOTHING. Any government, even one which is limited to protecting life and property and issues no debt whatsoever, is a cost on the economy. The fact that this cost is necessary does not negate the fact that it is a cost.

It is one thing to measure this cost in terms of money. It is another thing entirely to measure it in terms of the real wealth which has been consumed by government. The ONLY way to increase the wealth of an individual or a nation of individuals is to produce MORE than is consumed. The difference - which is SAVINGS - can then be used to produce more real wealth with more efficient means and thus less real effort. This is the only way that an economy can genuinely “grow”. This is what transformed the US from an all but untouched potential into a continent-girdling economic powerhouse. It was not done by means of currency manipulation. It was not done by means of government borrowing. It was not done by all encompassing rules and regulations. It was done by means of political AND economic freedom.

It cannot be done in any other way. Increasing the units of the medium of exchange will NOT do it. Increasing the debt burden on generations to come will not do it. These things will do the opposite. They will and have inexorably led to capital consumption. The results of capital consumption are visible all over the world today - but in few places is the evidence more stark and obvious than it is in the US.

The century-long experiment of putting the cart on top of the horse has all but killed the horse. There is no way that the genuine productive capacity of the US economy can keep up with the government’s stampede into unrepayable debt. In reality, the US government has destroyed the productive capacity of its people. If they refuse to realise it - the economy and the markets will do it for them.

That process began on August 4 when US stock markets had their worst tumble since February 2009

[lowkey9]

the debt is your only argument coach? you realize that it means jack shit?  the whole "debt crisis" was a poltically manufactured issue. tea partyers got elected on their less government ideology and so they started a war about it. in reality we could go without any spending cuts, keep on increasing the debt, and so long as the economy turns around in the future everything would be just fine. we could chalk up 20, 30, 50 trillion in debt and it wouldnt matter so long as the world financial system is tied up in ours.. nothign will ever happen to us because if it did it would effect everyone else.

put that in your pipe and smoke it ya dumb fuck.

There's no point in trying to reasoning with them in this manner. When it comes to these types of things... some people are simply broken and cannot be fixed.

[lowkey9]

Emmortal will never truly understand how narrow his current argument is.  It's not even sad, it's almost cute, like when a child says something so profound and so out of touch with reality that you can't help but smile.

[erics]

Go read about Japan's tremendous losses they incurred when building roads throughout the countryside which they believed would cause more transportation and increase goods and services between rural areas, when in fact they just became ghost roads that no one used and ended up costing more to maintain than what little they did to boost economic growth.

Japan's road building efforts into nowhere have more to do with contracts for the boys than with any rational economic reason.

Consider these companies as special interest groups with a powerful lobby and you'll see why they were able to receive so many government contracts.

[Emmortal]

Japan's road building efforts into nowhere have more to do with contracts for the boys than with any rational economic reason.

Consider these companies as special interest groups with a powerful lobby and you'll see why they were able to receive so many government contracts.

Exactly my point.

Emmortal will never truly understand how narrow his current argument is.  It's not even sad, it's almost cute, like when a child says something so profound and so out of touch with reality that you can't help but smile.

You haven't even offered an argument so my point stands until you have something to offer to the discussion kindly run along and go spend your way out of the recession.

[George Whorewell]

While the best post in this entire thread was me abusing Benny, Emm has articulated exactly why America is fucked and why most people who post on this website don't have a clue about economics.

Government spending does nothing to stimulate the economy. Look at Europe for a perfect example.