Obama seeking new round of "Stimulus Spending"

[GigantorX]

Aren't those spending "cuts" just carry overs from the Debt Ceiling negotiations held last year?

I'm also pretty sure those "cuts" also include the projected savings from winding down the wars.

So in actuality there aren't going to be any cuts to spending. More taxes, yes, but no real cuts.

When it comes to economics we, as a nation, shouldn't be following the Japanese, they've been in a rut for 20 years and insist on doing the same things over and over again.

When you are always having to issue new "stimulus" because the economy is "Fragile" and the "recovery" is "slowing" you aren't really in a recovery, you're in a recession.

[tbombz]

http://www.businessinsider.com/infrastructure-economic-multiplier-2012-11

hello

sadly i dont think any of these conservatives are going to bother reading that, and even if they do i think they will most likely refuse to allow it any consideration.


george whorewell and others like to talk about printing money and inflation, at the same time telling other that they dont know anything about economics. whats  funny is that there characterization about inflation and printing money is over simplified and inaccurate.  the price of money is dictated by the ratio of the money supply to the supply of goods and services.  so long as the supply of goods and services rises proportionally to the increase in money supply, the price of money remains the same.  and that is exactly what is happening now. we are printing money but the amount of goods and services is rising as well (in proportion to the rise in population) and the two balance eachother out to keep inflation at stable levels.


but hey, what do i know? 

[Conker]

sadly i dont think any of these conservatives are going to bother reading that, and even if they do i think they will most likely refuse to allow it any consideration.


george whorewell and others like to talk about printing money and inflation, at the same time telling other that they dont know anything about economics. whats  funny is that there characterization about inflation and printing money is over simplified and inaccurate.  the price of money is dictated by the ratio of the money supply to the supply of goods and services.  so long as the supply of goods and services rises proportionally to the increase in money supply, the price of money remains the same.  and that is exactly what is happening now. we are printing money but the amount of goods and services is rising as well (in proportion to the rise in population) and the two balance eachother out to keep inflation at stable levels.


but hey, what do i know?  

No that is not what is happening now. You are printing money because of deflationary pressure caused by a lack of demand, due to a great extent to investors/consumers not having the economic confidence to part with their money.
This is also why you have interest rates stuck at a record low.

Goods and services are not rising, growth is stagnant/declining because of the lack of demand.

[George Whorewell]

sadly i dont think any of these conservatives are going to bother reading that, and even if they do i think they will most likely refuse to allow it any consideration.


george whorewell and others like to talk about printing money and inflation, at the same time telling other that they dont know anything about economics. whats  funny is that there characterization about inflation and printing money is over simplified and inaccurate.  the price of money is dictated by the ratio of the money supply to the supply of goods and services.  so long as the supply of goods and services rises proportionally to the increase in money supply, the price of money remains the same.  and that is exactly what is happening now. we are printing money but the amount of goods and services is rising as well (in proportion to the rise in population) and the two balance eachother out to keep inflation at stable levels.


but hey, what do i know? 

Thanks professor. Not surprisingly, that was another half-assed, incorrect, inapplicable explanation of a topic that you know less than nothing about. Is the Federal Reserve's pledge to print 30 billion dollars a month in perpetuity to purchase bad mortgages the result of "goods and services" dictating the money supply?

[Fury]

http://www.businessinsider.com/infrastructure-economic-multiplier-2012-11

hello

Keynesian cocksuckers also say that every $1 dollar in food stamps adds $1.80 to the economy. By their logic, the entire country should be put on food stamps. 

[tbombz]

No that is not what is happening now. You are printing money because of deflationary pressure caused by a lack of demand, due to a great extent to investors/consumers not having the economic confidence to part with their money.
This is also why you have interest rates stuck at a record low.

Goods and services are not rising, growth is stagnant/declining because of the lack of demand.

while pretty much everything you said is true, when we talk about growth we need to define our terms. are we talking quantitative or qualitative. all we need is a quantitative growth in goods and services in order to balance out an increase in the money supply. we dont need to have a qualitative increase in measures of prosperity. unemployment, a qualitative statistic, is stagnant. however, total jobs are increasing by the hundreds of thousands every month. the increase in populationn keeps the qualitative statistic at equilibirum. but quantitatively speaking are economic output is indeed increasing, every single month.

[tbombz]

Thanks professor. Not surprisingly, that was another half-assed, incorrect, inapplicable explanation of a topic that you know less than nothing about. Is the Federal Reserve's pledge to print 30 billion dollars a month in perpetuity to purchase bad mortgages the result of "goods and services" dictating the money supply?

well, i didnt say that goods and services were dictating the money supply. maybe you need to re-read what i wrote.      if you would like to expand on why you think my explanation about inflation and money supply being incorrect and inapplicable, go right ahead.      

by the way, keep calling me professor. its becoming.   

[tbombz]

Keynesian cocksuckers also say that every $1 dollar in food stamps adds $1.80 to the economy. By their logic, the entire country should be put on food stamps. 

well, your basically saying that every single goverment policy that results in more benefits than negative effects should be implemented to the maximum degree. thats a very utilitarian way of thinking and it basically says that you think the ends justify the means.

now, all of that being said,   would you like to refute that idea about food stamps adding 1.8 for every 1 spent ? 

[Conker]

while pretty much everything you said is true, when we talk about growth we need to define our terms. are we talking quantitative or qualitative. all we need is a quantitative growth in goods and services in order to balance out an increase in the money supply. we dont need to have a qualitative increase in measures of prosperity. unemployment, a qualitative statistic, is stagnant. however, total jobs are increasing by the hundreds of thousands every month. the increase in populationn keeps the qualitative statistic at equilibirum. but quantitatively speaking are economic output is indeed increasing, every single month.

Dude that is just mumbo jumbo. When talking about growth it is always in "quantitative" terms (unless otherwise stated).

I said that growth was stagnant/declining in the US in reference to your GDP figures of recent years. GDP is a measure of the total value of goods and services produced by a country, it has nothing to do with any gauging of quality of anything, just a straight measure of a nation's total economic output.

And how are unemployment figures a "qualitative" statistic?
Surely unemployment figures just show how many people (quantitatively) don't have jobs, no?

Also it's worth bearing in minds that governments are not adverse to massaging job/unemployment figs to make things look better than they are.

[George Whorewell]

well, i didnt say that goods and services were dictating the money supply. maybe you need to re-read what i wrote.      if you would like to expand on why you think my explanation about inflation and money supply being incorrect and inapplicable, go right ahead.      

by the way, keep calling me professor. its becoming.   

 so long as the supply of goods and services rises proportionally to the increase in money supply, the price of money remains the same.  and that is exactly what is happening now.

[George Whorewell]

well, your basically saying that every single goverment policy that results in more benefits than negative effects should be implemented to the maximum degree. thats a very utilitarian way of thinking and it basically says that you think the ends justify the means.

now, all of that being said,   would you like to refute that idea about food stamps adding 1.8 for every 1 spent ? 

An autistic gerbil could refute the idea that food stamps adds $1.80 for every dollar spent.

[Conker]

so long as the supply of goods and services rises proportionally to the increase in money supply, the price of money remains the same.  and that is exactly what is happening now.

Goods and services are not rising proportionately with the increase in money supply. The money that's been printed is simply not reaching the real economy. When money is printed it is given to the banks with the aim that they lend to businesses/consumers, but the problem is people don't have the economic confidence to expand or start up new businesses given the current climate, so it is hard to actually get them to borrow the money. This coupled with the fact that the criteria for borrowing money is now stricter since a lot of the blame for the banking crash was put on banks for making bad loans, this makes it even more difficult for the new money to reach the real economy.

You said in an earlier post that printing money devalues the currency and causes inflation, which is correct(in theory) but that is actually the aim.

Money is being printed because the long term fear is deflation not inflation, and the current lack of demand is squeezing down the profits (or forcing out of business) those that supply goods and services. The whole point of increasing the money supply is to make it less valuable so that people start parting with it again and demand for goods and services goes back up and decent growth is restored. Whether that actually happens or not is a different matter.

Japan has been in a similar situation with deflationary pressure and stagnant growth since the 90s, they have undertaken several rounds of quantitative easing along with other measures of fiscal stimulus and rather than this causing an inflationary spiral, inflation there is still deadlining.

[Necrosis]

Keynesian cocksuckers also say that every $1 dollar in food stamps adds $1.80 to the economy. By their logic, the entire country should be put on food stamps. 

source?

[Soul Crusher]

source?

Go back to bed. 

[Necrosis]

Go back to bed. 

ok

[George Whorewell]

Goods and services are not rising proportionately with the increase in money supply. The money that's been printed is simply not reaching the real economy. When money is printed it is given to the banks with the aim that they lend to businesses/consumers, but the problem is people don't have the economic confidence to expand or start up new businesses given the current climate, so it is hard to actually get them to borrow the money. This coupled with the fact that the criteria for borrowing money is now stricter since a lot of the blame for the banking crash was put on banks for making bad loans, this makes it even more difficult for the new money to reach the real economy.

You said in an earlier post that printing money devalues the currency and causes inflation, which is correct(in theory) but that is actually the aim.

Money is being printed because the long term fear is deflation not inflation, and the current lack of demand is squeezing down the profits (or forcing out of business) those that supply goods and services. The whole point of increasing the money supply is to make it less valuable so that people start parting with it again and demand for goods and services goes back up and decent growth is restored. Whether that actually happens or not is a different matter.

Japan has been in a similar situation with deflationary pressure and stagnant growth since the 90s, they have undertaken several rounds of quantitative easing along with other measures of fiscal stimulus and rather than this causing an inflationary spiral, inflation there is still deadlining.

I was quoting tobombz in that posting. You have it 100% correct. He has no clue about what hes talking about.