How Do We Grow Our Economy?

[auditor0007]

Those who think divvying up an existing pie is the way to economic growth are missing the boat. When you divvy up the pie, the pie soon ceases to exist.

If you want everybody to have pie, the only logical way to do that is for more people to bake pies every day and for the government to encourage incentives to bake those pies. When the government presumes to tell you what kind of pie you have to bake, who gets the pieces, and how much you get to keep for yourself, a whole lot people will a) be able to bake a pie and b) will be inclined to bake one.

And the one lesson our government no longer seems to understand, if you get pie whether or not you bake one, there is a whole lot less incentive to bake.

There is no divvying up of the pie, at least not now. We are and will continue to see growth so long as our population increases. Most of you missed the point of the thread. The question was how do we continue to grow the economy once we stop having population growth. There are ways to do it, but it's not easy. It does become more difficult for business owners to expand most businesses, especially if they are consumer type businesses.

 

[auditor0007]

Those who think divvying up an existing pie is the way to economic growth are missing the boat. When you divvy up the pie, the pie soon ceases to exist.

If you want everybody to have pie, the only logical way to do that is for more people to bake pies every day and for the government to encourage incentives to bake those pies. When the government presumes to tell you what kind of pie you have to bake, who gets the pieces, and how much you get to keep for yourself, a whole lot people will a) be able to bake a pie and b) will be inclined to bake one.

And the one lesson our government no longer seems to understand, if you get pie whether or not you bake one, there is a whole lot less incentive to bake.

Yeah, but how are you going to make the pie bigger? The post above this one started out with the right idea: cut taxes to zero on incomes $50,000 and below. However, the guy went on to advocate cutting defense spending. Others have talked about cutting a lot of other spending - welfare, etc.

You expand the economy by making more money available for consumption and investment. That is done by reducing the tax burden and injecting money with government spending. While there may be "values" reasons for cutting welfare, etc., from a purely economic point of view, it provides money in people's hands which is spent, in turn becoming income for somebody else - on and on - hell yeah, the multiplier. The same is true for money left in people's hands by reduced taxes.

But won't that make for deficits? Yes, but ....... Debt for America simply means increasing the money supply - the dollar is back by what? by government debt instruments. How do other countries pay their debts? Greece, Spain, France, etc.? with DOLLARS! The Almighty Dollar is the RESERVE CURRENCY for the world - meaning all international transactions must be made in dollars. How does the U.S. pay its debt? also with DOLLARS! - Basically go to the old printing press and print more. THAT is what prevents us from getting into a hole like Greece and Spain.

But won't that cause inflation? Some say yes, but it hasn't happened yet - and really should not as long as the dollar is the reserve currency.

The big danger we have from Obama and the leftists is that they seem bent on weakening America's position of world dominance. As long as we are militarily dominant, the dollar will be the world's reserve currency, and the world will basically be paying tribute to US as in U.S. I for one like it that way.

We may remain dominant intellectually, but based on our poor education system, I doubt that one too. China is going to surpass us economically, and it's going to happen much sooner than people think. The thing is, in the long run, China's economy will likely triple ours. So this idea of "World Dominance" holds little value in the long run.

 

[Dubya]

How do we grow our economy once we cease to have any growth in the population? We're not there yet, but eventually we will stop growing. Economic growth, for the greatest part, is due to growth in population. What happens once that growth stops? How do we divvy up the pie then?

Innovation and productivity are also important factors. Look at some of those times in the past that saw good economic growth! The Kennedy/Johnson days had many baby boomers coming of age and joining the workforce, but saw a significant reduction in the amount of people in poverty. Our industrial base was good back in those days and we weren't outsourcing jobs like we do today. The working class had more purchasing power and that produced more economic growth. The health care expenses were cheaper because the insurance was controlled by tax exempt, non-profit organizations. Energy costs were cheaper.

If we changed our society to create more jobs in the US and paid the workers more, our market would grow. Innovations to decrease the costs of health care and energy would add money to be spent on other things. Solving the world's illegal drug problems would add money to more productive things in our economy. Even without a population increasing on it's own, a population can increase with increasing immigration. Increases in productivity can free up labor for other endeavors. Innovations can create new industries.

 

[Sallow]

A preponderance of the evidence from the US Treasury Department seems to indicate that filthy god damned neocon scum borrow unsupportable amounts of money to fool morons into believing things are better, while sane presidents like pap Bush and others don't. This chart makes it crystal clear who the culprits are when it comes to fucking our children: nutball scum by ten miles. Many of them actually look like pedophiles. Did anyone notice that smirk on Junebug, or the way Reagan's hands seemed to linger on chlidren? (Maybe the Reagan children have another book to write?)

The post shows you cannot read a graph and are taken in by carefully crafted images.
In the real world Obama has added $7T in debt--more than almost every president since.

No he hasn't.

 

[Sallow]

Obama spends like a crack ho

Oh cool.

Then you can show us all in the audience just what Obama has added in new spending.

GO!

 

[Oddball]

More than four years later and the intellectually bankrupt dickweeds are still blaming BOOOOOOOSH!

Flabbergasting.

 

[Mr Natural]

Go back to the old ways and raid other countries for slaves?

Slaves and riches.

 

[The Rabbi]

More than four years later and the intellectually bankrupt dickweeds are still blaming BOOOOOOOSH!

Flabbergasting.

I'd blame Bush too. For signing on to Congressional Democrats' plans in the last 2 years of his administration.
The Dems' financial policies are abject failures. There is no failure greater than theirs, save Communism.

 

[Oddball]

More than four years later and the intellectually bankrupt dickweeds are still blaming BOOOOOOOSH!

Flabbergasting.

I'd blame Bush too. For signing on to Congressional Democrats' plans in the last 2 years of his administration.
The Dems' financial policies are abject failures. There is no failure greater than theirs, save Communism.

WTF are you talking about his last two years?...He spent and expanded bureaucracy like a democratic on crack, during his first six years as well...All with hardly a peep out of the left.

Now, when it's their guy piling another $6 trillion on top of that, they try to portray him as the next coming of Coolidge.

 

[Contumacious]

How do we grow our economy ....?

Down With the Presidency

They understood that FDR had brought both the Congress and the Supreme Court under his control, for purposes of power, national socialism, and war. He shredded what was left of the Constitution, and set the stage for all the consolidation that followed. Later presidents were free to nationalize the public schools, administer the economy according to the dictates of crackpot Keynesian economists, tell us who we must and who we must not associate with, nationalize the police function, and run an egalitarian regime that extols nondiscrimination as the sole moral tenet, when it is clearly not a moral tenet at all. Later conservatives like James Burnham, Wilmoore Kendall, and Robert Nisbet, understood this point too."

.

 

[initforme]

"We may remain dominant intellectually, but based on our poor education system, I doubt that one too. China is going to surpass us economically, and it's going to happen much sooner than people think. The thing is, in the long run, China's economy will likely triple ours. So this idea of "World Dominance" holds little value in the long run.

The problem with China is that the middle class workers are struggling. And many of them are working in factories for low wages. They are not the economic model we are even slightly after.
__________________

 

[initforme]

We need more people in post secondary training so the jobs that do come once the economy recovers are white collar jobs rather than being stuck or trapped in some dingy factory. A post secondary educated work force is our only shot.

 

[Foxfyre]

Those who think divvying up an existing pie is the way to economic growth are missing the boat. When you divvy up the pie, the pie soon ceases to exist.

If you want everybody to have pie, the only logical way to do that is for more people to bake pies every day and for the government to encourage incentives to bake those pies. When the government presumes to tell you what kind of pie you have to bake, who gets the pieces, and how much you get to keep for yourself, a whole lot people will a) be able to bake a pie and b) will be inclined to bake one.

And the one lesson our government no longer seems to understand, if you get pie whether or not you bake one, there is a whole lot less incentive to bake.

There is no divvying up of the pie, at least not now. We are and will continue to see growth so long as our population increases. Most of you missed the point of the thread. The question was how do we continue to grow the economy once we stop having population growth. There are ways to do it, but it's not easy. It does become more difficult for business owners to expand most businesses, especially if they are consumer type businesses.

Sure there is divvying up of the existing pie. That's what happens when the government takes a dollar from me, who earned it, and gives it to somebody who didn't.

As for how you grow the economy, you do so by increasing demand and by making it worth the risk to do that. Would I drive a better car if I had the money? Yes I would, and that provides jobs for those who produce the inputs, those who build the car, those who transport it, who display it for sale, who advertise it, who sell it, who insure it, etc. etc. etc. And when my old car has outlived its usefulness, its junking provides opportunity for more jobs and should provide raw materials for other products.

Would I live in a nicer house if I could afford it? Yes I would.

Would I have better landscaping, nicer clothes, a more powerful computer, eat more expensive food, go on nicer vacations, give better gifts, etc. if I could afford it? Yes I would.

Certainly the influx of 12 to 20 million poor illegal immigrants that drain pulbic services has not contributed to much prosperity. But the development of an attractive new I-phone or popular new video game does.

But if you make taking risks unattractive, there are fewer jobs, fewer raises, less opportunity to improve one's economic condition. And in an uncertain economic climate, people like me are less likely to spend on something they don't absolutely have to have even if they have the money.

Turn the people loose economically, and back the government out of as much of the process as possible, and you grow the economy.

 

[Mr Natural]

How do we grow our economy once we cease to have any growth in the population? We're not there yet, but eventually we will stop growing. Economic growth, for the greatest part, is due to growth in population. What happens once that growth stops? How do we divvy up the pie then?

According to the righties, the economy is supply driven so it doesn't matter.

Just ask Special Ed when he gets here.

 

[Foxfyre]

How do we grow our economy once we cease to have any growth in the population? We're not there yet, but eventually we will stop growing. Economic growth, for the greatest part, is due to growth in population. What happens once that growth stops? How do we divvy up the pie then?

According to the righties, the economy is supply driven so it doesn't matter.

Just ask Special Ed when he gets here.

The ONLY real growth in any economy is supply sided. Even China has come to realize that and it is only their supply sided economy, finally allowed by their government, that is prospering. And it will be that supply sided economy that will overtake us even as our own government continues to discourage supply side here.

 

[Foxfyre]

For those who really want a serious education in modern economics, I recommend The Financial Crisis and the Free Market Cure: Why Pure Capitalism is the World Economy’s Only Hope by John Allison. Allison is the new boss at CATO who have been equally critical of the socialist agenda of both Republicans and Democrats. In his book he provides a combination of hard core capitalist supply-sided policy plus intense monetary reform--hear that Ron Paul fans?--as the only hope to bring the economy back to prosperity.

 

[Fishlore]

How do we grow our economy ....?

Down With the Presidency

They understood that FDR had brought both the Congress and the Supreme Court under his control, for purposes of power, national socialism, and war. He shredded what was left of the Constitution, and set the stage for all the consolidation that followed. Later presidents were free to nationalize the public schools, administer the economy according to the dictates of crackpot Keynesian economists, tell us who we must and who we must not associate with, nationalize the police function, and run an egalitarian regime that extols nondiscrimination as the sole moral tenet, when it is clearly not a moral tenet at all. Later conservatives like James Burnham, Wilmoore Kendall, and Robert Nisbet, understood this point too."
.

As my eyes stumbled wearily over the above all-too-familiar right wing fantasy of American history, I asked myself for the umpteenth time, "where do all these guys get this truly weird understanding of our history?" Today, it came to me in a flash, for which I thank my colleague.

The far-right myth of American history of which the above is a cozy example, comes from the wholesale transplanting of radical fundamentalist Christian theology as preached by fringe sects like LDS or Jehovah's Witnesses to the modern history of the US.

The core of fundamentalist church history is the notion of the Great Apostasy. According to this view, the very significant differences between the early Christian Church as described by the Early Fathers and the [Catholic] Church as it appears today, are the result of heretical departures from the true message of Christ and His Apostles.

I suppose you could consider today's conservatives as the Shia of American politics. The true faith of the Founding Fathers has become corrupted by wicked liberals and only a swift return to the original intent of those divinely inspired patriarchs can save us from our doom. Our Constitution is not the Bible, of course, and there is nothing sacred or supernatural in our politics; still clothing our current disagreements over federal policies in the the garb of the Great Apostasy not only legitimizes the position of the right wing, it provides many American evangelicals with an emotionally satisfying conceptual framework with which to understand complex policy issues