Whats the problem with the US Economy

[Rshermr]

So, take a step back says:

So fight the disease by introducing more of it into the host?

So, step, we are talking about unemployment. What do you believe is going to create more of a problem?

Interesting theory.

You act as if it is new. It is not a "theory" if it works. It has been tested on several occasions, and has worked in each case.

Following the great depression, was the fed/state/local and citizenry as highly levered as they are now?

I assume you mean DURING the great depression. Makes no difference. None at all. Not sure what you think your point is. Take a look at what happened during the Reagan admin. Or the Clinton admin. You really do not have to go back that far.

Just how much M1 and M2 should we "stimulate" the economy with in order to reduce UE.

Whatever it takes. If you can afford wars, you can afford stimulus. And I suspect it would cost significantly less. But you have options. Borrowing, which has the issue of increasing the national debt. Or taxing. Which does not. So, you tax the more wealthy, and stimulate the economy in smart ways.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

So, step, we are talking about unemployment. What do you believe is going to create more of a problem?

Well, Stimulus is and bailing out failed institutions is creating more of a problem. Do we really want to focus on making it worse, or making it better?

You act as if it is new. It is not a "theory" if it works. It has been tested on several occasions, and has worked in each case.

OK, so TARP, the Stimulus, QE1, QE2 and Operation Twist have worked? How about the latest QE? Is that working? Because from what we're seeing, it isn't working at all.

I assume you mean DURING the great depression. Makes no difference. None at all. Not sure what you think your point is. Take a look at what happened during the Reagan admin. Or the Clinton admin. You really do not have to go back that far.

It makes a lot of difference. It's the entire point of the financial crisis that unfolded. Too much credit available due to low interest rates that caused a boom (coupled with govt. initiatives on home ownership) in real estate. Artificially spiking demand and causing the moral hazard of malinvestment and predator lending. People were already excessively in debt and borrowing far more than they could ever afford to pay back (sound familiar??). This is the very problem and pumping more borrowing opportunities into the banking sector, along with excessively low interest rates is only compounding and extending the problem. So again, it makes ALL the difference when comparing these two events.

Whatever it takes. If you can afford wars, you can afford stimulus. And I suspect it would cost significantly less. But you have options. Borrowing, which has the issue of increasing the national debt. Or taxing. Which does not. So, you tax the more wealthy, and stimulate the economy in smart ways.

Whatever it takes? So, 100 trillion more? two hundred trillion? We're borrowing now. In fact, a lot of borrowing. Taxing the rich barely dents the deficit, let alone touches any national debt. It's not a plan to reduce debt. It barely reduces deficits.

So I'm not really sure what your point is here. You seem to be of the opinion that we can just borrow and print, hold interest rates low and have highly leveraged people just keep borrowing. Then we'll borrow and print some more. Some how, eventually, this will lead to a boom in business that will lower UE. But it hasn't worked in 4 years, so I can't see how it is going to work at all. Maybe if we pump 100 Gazillion into the borrowing market, we can "recover".

 

[Rshermr]

So take a step back responds. He says:

Well, Stimulus is and bailing out failed institutions is creating more of a problem. Do we really want to focus on making it worse, or making it better?

I do not remember saying that bailing out failed institutions should be a component of recovery. That, as you well know, is a totally separate issue. But you are saying stimulus will make it worse. So, that is an interesting concept. Perhaps you would like to show a time when stimulus did not help a bad economy, particularly a bad unemployment economy. Then your statement may have some rationality to it. Till then, you just made a failed political argument.

Then step says:

OK, so TARP, the Stimulus, QE1, QE2 and Operation Twist have worked? How about the latest QE? Is that working? Because from what we're seeing, it isn't working at all.

Very much a con statement, step.
TARP was not a stimulus. It was an effort to save the economy from moving to a depression. But it was not a stimulus.
QE1 and 2 were not stimulus, but credit easing efforts. Did they work? Not a great deal of help, but some according to most economists. The efforts proved the old economic saying that you can not push on a string. Demand is the problem, and easing credit does very little for demand. Operation Twist is ongoing, and again is an effort to push on a string. It may have some value, but not a lot. Stimulus did indeed work, but really amounted to only a little over $500B in stimulus spending. The rest was in tax decreases.
Then step says:

It makes a lot of difference. It's the entire point of the financial crisis that unfolded. Too much credit available due to low interest rates that caused a boom (coupled with govt. initiatives on home ownership) in real estate. Artificially spiking demand and causing the moral hazard of malinvestment and predator lending. People were already excessively in debt and borrowing far more than they could ever afford to pay back (sound familiar??). This is the very problem and pumping more borrowing opportunities into the banking sector, along with excessively low interest rates is only compounding and extending the problem. So again, it makes ALL the difference when comparing these two events.

Nice political argument. But highly questionable. And has NOTHING at all to do with the unemployment rate at this point and going forward. Nice way of avoiding an argument you are trying to avoid. Try to stay focused on the current problem, which is unemployment. If you want to litigate what went wrong in 2008, and the lead up to that event, find a different thread.

Whatever it takes? So, 100 trillion more? two hundred trillion? We're borrowing now. In fact, a lot of borrowing. Taxing the rich barely dents the deficit, let alone touches any national debt. It's not a plan to reduce debt. It barely reduces deficits.

Lets try to be rational, step. Taxing the rich will not eliminate the national debt. The national debt and the deficit will not get significantly better until revenue increases, which will not get better until the UE rate is better. And demand is better. Take a look at history. And you may actually get a clue.
You see, step, we have proven in real life that bad unemployment numbers result when demand is low, and businesses are laying off as a result. So, what I am pointing to is stimulus, where the effort is to increase demand until the rate is reduced and the economy is working again. Not immediately eliminating either the deficit or the national debt. Because, as history again shows, those number will only get better with full employment.

Finally, step ends with:

I'm not really sure what your point is here. You seem to be of the opinion that we can just borrow and print, hold interest rates low and have highly leveraged people just keep borrowing. Then we'll borrow and print some more. Some how, eventually, this will lead to a boom in business that will lower UE. But it hasn't worked in 4 years, so I can't see how it is going to work at all. Maybe if we pump 100 Gazillion into the borrowing market, we can "recover".

I do not remember ever suggesting borrow and print, as you suggest. Borrow, perhaps, but I do not believe print will ever be part of the solution in a measurable way. And sorry that you do not get it. It is really simple, if your mind is open. Again, it is called stimulative spending. Creating jobs through spending on things like infrastructure. Which increases demand.
Is that so difficult to understand, step. Again, look at Roosevelt, Reagan, and Clinton. All were faced with problems with unemployment, and all used stimulus successfully. And no, it has nog been tried for the last 4 years. Just one time at around a half trillion bucks, not gazillions. And it has been stopped by repubs the rest of the time.

So, step, if my history is wrong, let me know. I have been wrong before. And if you have a better solution to the unemployment rate, inform us. You seem to be just saying nothing works so far. What do you suggest.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

 

[TakeAStepBack]

I'm not into teaching chimps how to fluently speak Italian, sorry.

 

[Nova78]

Whats the problem with the US Economy

 

[Rshermr]

I'm not into teaching chimps how to fluently speak Italian, sorry.

Does that have some meaning??

 

[TakeAStepBack]

I'd say reread your posts regarding stimulus/unemployment and the correlation and then the no correlation you tried to imply, but I highly doubt you will see it.

 

[Rshermr]

I'd say reread your posts regarding stimulus/unemployment and the correlation and then the no correlation you tried to imply, but I highly doubt you will see it.

I suspect that you can not argue what I have posted. If you can, go for it. Otherwise looks like you ae done.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I'd say reread your posts regarding stimulus/unemployment and the correlation and then the no correlation you tried to imply, but I highly doubt you will see it.

I suspect that you can not argue what I have posted. If you can, go for it. Otherwise looks like you ae done.

I know that if you could defend your own posts you wouldn't demand that others do it for you.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Perhaps you would like to show a time when stimulus did not help a bad economy,

OMG how idiotic and perfectly liberal. Did it ever help the USSR, East Germany, Japan's lost decade even with 200% debt?? Did it end the Great liberal Depression or Barry's current depression caused by a housing stimulus mal-investment??

The idea that you can steal a man's hard earned money so he cant spend it, then have liberal soviet bureaucrats who never had a real job spend it on mal-investment and call it stimulus is pure and perfect liberal idiocy.

Does it become magic money when liberal bureaucrats spend it on Solyndra and dead money when the people who earned it spend it??

See why we are 1000% certain that a liberal will be slow, so very very slow!!

 

[oldfart]

Perhaps you would like to show a time when stimulus did not help a bad economy,

OMG how idiotic and perfectly liberal. Did it ever help the USSR,

Actually yes. Both the recovery from the Civil War (1922-1927) and from WWII (1945-1956) were rather spectacular. Bad choice of example.

East Germany,

Not as strong a recovery as Russia or West Germany, but not bad compared to the rest of Europe 1946-1954. East Germany was the most developed economy in the Warsaw Pact, and while it did not compare well with Northern Europe, it didn't look too bad ompared to Italy, Greece, and the rest of Southern Europe.

Japan's lost decade even with 200% debt??

Japan is still struggling so it's two decades. The guy who won a Nobel for analyzing Japan's problems was named Paul Krugman. If you bothered to read him you would know that debt had nothing to do with Japan's lost decades. Japan just wandered into a liquidity trap beforeeveryone else did.

Did it end the Great liberal Depression

Well you got me there. I guess WWII doesn't count as stimulus. And the severe recession of 1937 was caused by elves rather than the premature removal of stimulus.

or Barry's current depression caused by a housing stimulus mal-investment??

OK a housing market bubble triggered the "Minsky moment" which set off the financial panic. But the economy was already in trouble. And the reason for the financial collapse wasn't the housing market, it was the toxic assets created and marketed in the wake of financial deregulation. This could not have happened 1934--1997.

then have liberal soviet bureaucrats who never had a real job spend it on mal-investment and call it stimulus is pure and perfect liberal idiocy.

All of the apparatchniki will be saddened to hear they never had a "real job". I never thought of Stalinists as liberals, but whatever floats your boat. When you have time, let me know and I will share some of my 2000 or so stories about the Soviet economy with you. I had to do something in graduate school to while away the time on my Defense Education Act fellowship, and the folks at the Joint Center for East European Studies wanted to keep me busy enough to stay off the streets. I'm serious, don't you want to know why the New Soviet Man wore size seven boots? Or how we got a population estimate or the City of Moscow? Or why the Soviets could never clean up Lake Baikal?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Perhaps you would like to show a time when stimulus did not help a bad economy...

Well, since you asked.

Let me google that for you

 

[Rshermr]

Perhaps you would like to show a time when stimulus did not help a bad economy...

Well, since you asked.

Let me google that for you

Perhaps you should reread the article that your link provided.
First, it was Japan, not the US. Second, the problems were multiple.
Try the US. Unless you would like to look at Somalia, or some such, next.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Perhaps you would like to show a time when stimulus did not help a bad economy...

Well, since you asked.

Let me google that for you

Perhaps you should reread the article that your link provided.
First, it was Japan, not the US. Second, the problems were multiple.
Try the US. Unless you would like to look at Somalia, or some such, next.

Perhaps you should reread your challenge to show a time when a stimulus failed to help an economy. I took your challenge, found an example of multiple stimulus programs that failed to help an economy, and you want to pretend you were talking about something else.

 

[Rshermr]

Well, since you asked.

Let me google that for you

Perhaps you should reread the article that your link provided.
First, it was Japan, not the US. Second, the problems were multiple.
Try the US. Unless you would like to look at Somalia, or some such, next.

Perhaps you should reread your challenge to show a time when a stimulus failed to help an economy. I took your challenge, found an example of multiple stimulus programs that failed to help an economy, and you want to pretend you were talking about something else.

Yes, daveman, and it probably did not work in somalia either. Any US examples, or are you just being a dipshit again? You could go for Reagan. He decreased tax rates in the US. Or, hell, just go back to W. But not daveman. Because daveman is a con tool, and knows he can not work with US economic issues. So, he goes with another con tool, Ed, and tries to find an example elsewhere in the world.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Perhaps you should reread the article that your link provided.
First, it was Japan, not the US. Second, the problems were multiple.
Try the US. Unless you would like to look at Somalia, or some such, next.

Perhaps you should reread your challenge to show a time when a stimulus failed to help an economy. I took your challenge, found an example of multiple stimulus programs that failed to help an economy, and you want to pretend you were talking about something else.

Yes, daveman, and it probably did not work in somalia either. Any US examples, or are you just being a dipshit again? You could go for Reagan. He decreased tax rates in the US. Or, hell, just go back to W. But not daveman. Because daveman is a con tool, and knows he can not work with US economic issues. So, he goes with another con tool, Ed, and tries to find an example elsewhere in the world.

Did you ever hear of the ARRA? Or are you going to claim that it worked?

 

[MikeK]

The problem with the economy is conservative economic theories of the past...they were put into practice and the chickens have come home to roost

Which of Friedmans theories do you have in mind? and why????

Please tell us or admit to being a low IQ liberal

The same theories Friedmen recommended to Pinochet which led to the destruction of the Chilean middle class, the rise of a financial nobility, and a long period of economic enslavement. Anyone who wishes to understand the details need only read Naomi Klein's, The Shock Doctrine.

 

[Rshermr]

The problem with the economy is conservative economic theories of the past...they were put into practice and the chickens have come home to roost

Which of Friedmans theories do you have in mind? and why????

Please tell us or admit to being a low IQ liberal

The same theories Friedmen recommended to Pinochet which led to the destruction of the Chilean middle class, the rise of a financial nobility, and a long period of economic enslavement. Anyone who wishes to understand the details need only read Naomi Klein's, The Shock Doctrine.

unfortunately ed does not read. Just posts dogma. Cut and paste, repeat, cut and paste, repeat.

 

[MisterBeale]

Too much red tape,
Too much spending on other countries and none on ours.
Spending into thin air
Rewarding failure
Our educational system is fucekd up under unions.

I don't usually agree with much you say, but this is a good starting point. You forgot a couple of very salient and important points. The world wide banking cartel prints and issues all credit and interest, and then there is the colossal waste of the publics funds. Lets see where that waste goes, shall we?

Let's see, the Berlin wall fell in 1989, since then, the Luciferian Masons, and the Zionists have been funding both sides of a non-existent "terrorist" threat, building an actual threat, in order to create a police state in all the governments of the free peoples of the world.

This is why we fight "al-Qaeda" in Afghanistan, while allying ourselves with them in Iraq and Syria. It's good for business, and it is good for the politics of fear and "controlling" the economy. Our currency, or money system is a debt based system, it could not function with out debt. The US has no problem with its economy, nor does the European Union, this has all been planned by the elites, just as WWI, WWII, and the Great Depression. These were no accidents. They will have global government and a one world currency unless you people wake the fuck up.

Choose. What will it be? Keep believing that the party bosses, the union bosses, and the corporate big wigs aren't all being paid off by the same big interests, meeting and compromising to the same big players, or keep traveling down the road toward enslavement and/or WWIII. Your choice.

Facebook for those who matter. Party affiliation doesn't matter.
http://www.guilderberg.com/