[POLL] - Liberals, how much is a "fair share?" - Taxes

[thereisnospoon]

Yes dear, it is. In your own words:
But however selfish my motives are for engaging in capitalism, I nevertheless benefit many others. I benefit those who I acquire property from, those I pay taxes to, those I purchase supplies, services, and labor (i.e. employees) from, and all those to whom I provide a service or product that they need or want. And they in turn, quite coincidentally, benefit me by engaging in their own self serving interests.

If capitalism would not benefit most of the society members, we would replace is by something else long ago. Actually, the only reason we haven't is that we learned to replace laissez-faire capitalism with a modern welfare state.

Bottom line is that there is a place for the government, and its primary task is to correct bad outcomes that the free market creates. Like economic depressions, or too big an inequality.

Once again, there is no such thing as income inequality.

Whatever you shall want to call it

It has no name because it does not exist.
The term presupposes the norm being all income is equal. Now please, stop the nonsense.

 

[PMZ]

The economy is cyclical. It fixes itself.

Sure, in the long run it fixes itself. But not before it leaves millions unemployed for years.



On the contrary -- it prevented another Great Depression for so many years that we forgot the lessons. Then it happened again.

One of the reasons why we are in such an economic malaise is because the government will not allow the economy to bottom out.

And where was the bottom? 25% unemployed? Or 75%? And how long it would take to crawl back?

That is not the point. The federal government has been running up huge debt, money we do not have to artificially prop up the economy.
DO you really believe everything should be roses all the time? That there should never be peaks and valleys in the economy? Surely you cannot be that naive.
Have you ever asked yourself why annualized GDP growth has been under 2% for the last 15 quarters?
The fact is no matter what government does, it cannot avoid the inevitable forever. The Federal Reserve cannot keep printing currency and the government cannot keep borrowing forever.
May as well get it over with.
Either the band aid gets pulled off slowly and the pain lasts a long time, or pull it off quickly. The pain is more intense but lasts just a moment.

Except your band aid analogy is backwards. If the government, like they did in Europe, does not borrow and make up for the demand the laid off workers would normally be spending, the recession lasts longer, and costs the government more revenue, over a longer period of time. Done effectively as Obama has apparently done it, the borrowing has good payback. Of course the best scenario is to not have resessions, but business does not seem to be able to pull that off.

 

[ilia25]

The economy is cyclical. It fixes itself.

Sure, in the long run it fixes itself. But not before it leaves millions unemployed for years.



On the contrary -- it prevented another Great Depression for so many years that we forgot the lessons. Then it happened again.

One of the reasons why we are in such an economic malaise is because the government will not allow the economy to bottom out.

And where was the bottom? 25% unemployed? Or 75%? And how long it would take to crawl back?

That is not the point. The federal government has been running up huge debt, money we do not have to artificially prop up the economy.

No, unemployment is the point. You, like many other people, for some reason think that unemployment is a punishment for past sins. Or a bitter medicine that has to be endured for the economy to get better.

Except that comforting picture has nothing to do with reality. Even you should be able to understand that preventing millions of able and willing people from working cannot possibly solve anything. Especially the debt problem. On the contrary, it makes it harder to pay off the debt.

Unemployment is not a solution, it is a problem. Moreover, it's a technical issue, and totally avoidable given the right monetary and fiscal policy.

Keynes called it a magneto problem. There is nothing wrong with capitalism, he argued, no more than with a stalled engine. You just have to crank it long enough and it will start again.

Not that I expect you to understand any of this.

Either the band aid gets pulled off slowly and the pain lasts a long time, or pull it off quickly. The pain is more intense but lasts just a moment.

The economy is not working that way. The opposite is true. The bigger the shock, the more chance that it will overwhelm the standard policy response and put the economy into a long depression.

 

[Foxfyre]

Obviously someone was living under the rock for the past 80 years.

Depression is simple -- people a scared by some event, and cut on their spending. Businesses can't sell, have to let the workers go and they cut spending even further. And down we go until millions have no work and no income.

The economy is cyclical. It fixes itself.

Sure, in the long run it fixes itself. But not before it leaves millions unemployed for years.

Government interference in the economy invariably results in disaster.

On the contrary -- it prevented another Great Depression for so many years that we forgot the lessons. Then it happened again.

One of the reasons why we are in such an economic malaise is because the government will not allow the economy to bottom out.

And where was the bottom? 25% unemployed? Or 75%? And how long it would take to crawl back?

Every other severe recession we have had has righted itself within a fairly short period without government help. The two that have had massive government help was during FDR's term and the current administration. The Great Depression lasted for ten years. The current one is headed for that record. I have posted reams of credible material showing that FDR's policies did not shorten but rather prolonged the Great Depression. FDR's policies did not end the Great Depression. WWII did that. And history will also not be kind re Obama's policies of trying to spend us out of this one.

The government can simply not do what the private sector does. Every dime it spends is a dime taken out of the private sector, so any benefit is offset by a weakened private sector. It is also a dime much less reduced in value because most of it goes to feed an ever more bloated government. And if the dime is borrowed, it just increases the size of the burden on the backs of the private sector.

 

[PMZ]

The economy is cyclical. It fixes itself.

Sure, in the long run it fixes itself. But not before it leaves millions unemployed for years.



On the contrary -- it prevented another Great Depression for so many years that we forgot the lessons. Then it happened again.

One of the reasons why we are in such an economic malaise is because the government will not allow the economy to bottom out.

And where was the bottom? 25% unemployed? Or 75%? And how long it would take to crawl back?

Every other severe recession we have had has righted itself within a fairly short period without government help. The two that have had massive government help was during FDR's term and the current administration. The Great Depression lasted for ten years. The current one is headed for that record. I have posted reams of credible material showing that FDR's policies did not shorten but rather prolonged the Great Depression. FDR's policies did not end the Great Depression. WWII did that. And history will also not be kind re Obama's policies of trying to spend us out of this one.

The government can simply not do what the private sector does. Every dime it spends is a dime taken out of the private sector, so any benefit is offset by a weakened private sector. It is also a dime much less reduced in value because most of it goes to feed an ever more bloated government. And if the dime is borrowed, it just increases the size of the burden on the backs of the private sector.

The private sector created the problem following their one rule, make more money regardless of the cost to others. That's the best that they can do. Optimize individually.

Recessions are systemic problems caused by the collective result of individuals optimizing locally.

Left to their own devices, individual businesses, would recover very slowly. The current recession was caused by them individually giving American jobs to cheap foreign labor that they recruited here, or jobs that they sent there.

They, individually aren't motivated to recover, because they are looking only at their own costs and not collective consumer demand.

Unemployment benefits are the only force maintaining demand from unemployed workers. We are not taking the funds from the private sector we are borrowing them. The loans will be repaid by the recovery. Just like companies do.

There is no force in history, with the possible exception of religion, that has rendered people more ignorant than the current republican dogma that all problems stem from government.

 

[ilia25]

The economy is cyclical. It fixes itself.

Sure, in the long run it fixes itself. But not before it leaves millions unemployed for years.



On the contrary -- it prevented another Great Depression for so many years that we forgot the lessons. Then it happened again.

One of the reasons why we are in such an economic malaise is because the government will not allow the economy to bottom out.

And where was the bottom? 25% unemployed? Or 75%? And how long it would take to crawl back?

Every other severe recession we have had has righted itself within a fairly short period without government help.

That's not true. Every recession since 80s resulted in a long slump. The term "jobless recovery" was coined in early 90s.

The recessions before that were created by Fed fighting off inflation. As soon as Fed decided that the economy had suffered enough it would lower the rates and started recovery. But recent recessions happened when the inflation was already low, so Fed could not do much about it. Meaning slow recovery -- the harder is the initial shock, the longer the depression.

The two that have had massive government help was during FDR's term and the current administration.

You've got your logic backwards. It's the severity of recession that prompted the government response, not the other way around.

FDR's policies did not end the Great Depression. WWII did that.

People making that argument are called military Keynesians. The government spending only helps the economy if it buys military equipment. That's nuts.

The government can simply not do what the private sector does.

But the government can do what private sector won't -- increase spending when facing a weak economy.

Every dime it spends is a dime taken out of the private sector, so any benefit is offset by a weakened private sector.

You must have been living under the rock in the past years. Haven't you heard about the Fed and the printing press? The economy is awash with money. Companies in particular are sitting on mountains of cash they don't want to spend.

Government spending in these conditions won't crowd out the private sector.

 

[boedicca]

Sure, in the long run it fixes itself. But not before it leaves millions unemployed for years.



On the contrary -- it prevented another Great Depression for so many years that we forgot the lessons. Then it happened again.




And where was the bottom? 25% unemployed? Or 75%? And how long it would take to crawl back?

Every other severe recession we have had has righted itself within a fairly short period without government help. The two that have had massive government help was during FDR's term and the current administration. The Great Depression lasted for ten years. The current one is headed for that record. I have posted reams of credible material showing that FDR's policies did not shorten but rather prolonged the Great Depression. FDR's policies did not end the Great Depression. WWII did that. And history will also not be kind re Obama's policies of trying to spend us out of this one.

The government can simply not do what the private sector does. Every dime it spends is a dime taken out of the private sector, so any benefit is offset by a weakened private sector. It is also a dime much less reduced in value because most of it goes to feed an ever more bloated government. And if the dime is borrowed, it just increases the size of the burden on the backs of the private sector.

The private sector created the problem following their one rule, make more money regardless of the cost to others. That's the best that they can do. Optimize individually.

Recessions are systemic problems caused by the collective result of individuals optimizing locally.

Left to their own devices, individual businesses, would recover very slowly. The current recession was caused by them individually giving American jobs to cheap foreign labor that they recruited here, or jobs that they sent there.

They, individually aren't motivated to recover, because they are looking only at their own costs and not collective consumer demand.

Unemployment benefits are the only force maintaining demand from unemployed workers. We are not taking the funds from the private sector we are borrowing them. The loans will be repaid by the recovery. Just like companies do.

There is no force in history, with the possible exception of religion, that has rendered people more ignorant than the current republican dogma that all problems stem from government.

Economic illiteracy runs deep it does, in ^^^this post^^^...yessssss....

It's clear you have never run a business, understand very little about human nature, have no appreciation for the damage done by unbridled government power, and do not understand that the US economy is nothing like a free market.

The recession was caused by a confluence of government overreach, fiat currency expansion driving bubble after bubble, and cronyism.

 

[Foxfyre]

Sure, in the long run it fixes itself. But not before it leaves millions unemployed for years.



On the contrary -- it prevented another Great Depression for so many years that we forgot the lessons. Then it happened again.




And where was the bottom? 25% unemployed? Or 75%? And how long it would take to crawl back?

Every other severe recession we have had has righted itself within a fairly short period without government help.

That's not true. Every recession since 80s resulted in a long slump. The term "jobless recovery" was coined in early 90s.

The recessions before that were created by Fed fighting off inflation. As soon as Fed decided that the economy had suffered enough it would lower the rates and started recovery. But recent recessions happened when the inflation was already low, so Fed could not do much about it. Meaning slow recovery -- the harder is the initial shock, the longer the depression.



You've got your logic backwards. It's the severity of recession that prompted the government response, not the other way around.



People making that argument are called military Keynesians. The government spending only helps the economy if it buys military equipment. That's nuts.

The government can simply not do what the private sector does.

But the government can do what private sector won't -- increase spending when facing a weak economy.

Every dime it spends is a dime taken out of the private sector, so any benefit is offset by a weakened private sector.

You must have been living under the rock in the past years. Haven't you heard about the Fed and the printing press? The economy is awash with money. Companies in particular are sitting on mountains of cash they don't want to spend.

Government spending in these conditions won't crowd out the private sector.

I believe you won't find any credible, non partisan source to back up your statements here. And while we are well off track on the question in the OP, it was Roosevelt's manipulation of wages and government spending that prolonged the Great Depression by many years.

I have posted link after link to authoritative articles from nonpartisan and credible sources on this subject. You have furnished none.

But on the off chance that somebody might choose to educate themselves on this subject, here is one more:

Two UCLA economists say they have figured out why the Great Depression dragged on for almost 15 years, and they blame a suspect previously thought to be beyond reproach: President Franklin D. Roosevelt.

After scrutinizing Roosevelt's record for four years, Harold L. Cole and Lee E. Ohanian conclude in a new study that New Deal policies signed into law 71 years ago thwarted economic recovery for seven long years.

"Why the Great Depression lasted so long has always been a great mystery, and because we never really knew the reason, we have always worried whether we would have another 10- to 15-year economic slump," said Ohanian, vice chair of UCLA's Department of Economics. "We found that a relapse isn't likely unless lawmakers gum up a recovery with ill-conceived stimulus policies."

In an article in the August issue of the Journal of Political Economy, Ohanian and Cole blame specific anti-competition and pro-labor measures that Roosevelt promoted and signed into law June 16, 1933. . . .

More at:
FDR's policies prolonged Depression by 7 years, UCLA economists calculate / UCLA Newsroom

A fair wage is the value of labor established in a free market system by free people who have their rights secured and then are left alone to work for themselves. No government can ever be as effective in promoting prosperity for all.

 

[PMZ]

Every other severe recession we have had has righted itself within a fairly short period without government help. The two that have had massive government help was during FDR's term and the current administration. The Great Depression lasted for ten years. The current one is headed for that record. I have posted reams of credible material showing that FDR's policies did not shorten but rather prolonged the Great Depression. FDR's policies did not end the Great Depression. WWII did that. And history will also not be kind re Obama's policies of trying to spend us out of this one.

The government can simply not do what the private sector does. Every dime it spends is a dime taken out of the private sector, so any benefit is offset by a weakened private sector. It is also a dime much less reduced in value because most of it goes to feed an ever more bloated government. And if the dime is borrowed, it just increases the size of the burden on the backs of the private sector.

The private sector created the problem following their one rule, make more money regardless of the cost to others. That's the best that they can do. Optimize individually.

Recessions are systemic problems caused by the collective result of individuals optimizing locally.

Left to their own devices, individual businesses, would recover very slowly. The current recession was caused by them individually giving American jobs to cheap foreign labor that they recruited here, or jobs that they sent there.

They, individually aren't motivated to recover, because they are looking only at their own costs and not collective consumer demand.

Unemployment benefits are the only force maintaining demand from unemployed workers. We are not taking the funds from the private sector we are borrowing them. The loans will be repaid by the recovery. Just like companies do.

There is no force in history, with the possible exception of religion, that has rendered people more ignorant than the current republican dogma that all problems stem from government.

Economic illiteracy runs deep it does, in ^^^this post^^^...yessssss....

It's clear you have never run a business, understand very little about human nature, have no appreciation for the damage done by unbridled government power, and do not understand that the US economy is nothing like a free market.

The recession was caused by a confluence of government overreach, fiat currency expansion driving bubble after bubble, and cronyism.

What's clear is that you haven't had an independent thought in a couple of decades.

 

[PMZ]

Every other severe recession we have had has righted itself within a fairly short period without government help.

That's not true. Every recession since 80s resulted in a long slump. The term "jobless recovery" was coined in early 90s.

The recessions before that were created by Fed fighting off inflation. As soon as Fed decided that the economy had suffered enough it would lower the rates and started recovery. But recent recessions happened when the inflation was already low, so Fed could not do much about it. Meaning slow recovery -- the harder is the initial shock, the longer the depression.



You've got your logic backwards. It's the severity of recession that prompted the government response, not the other way around.



People making that argument are called military Keynesians. The government spending only helps the economy if it buys military equipment. That's nuts.



But the government can do what private sector won't -- increase spending when facing a weak economy.



You must have been living under the rock in the past years. Haven't you heard about the Fed and the printing press? The economy is awash with money. Companies in particular are sitting on mountains of cash they don't want to spend.

Government spending in these conditions won't crowd out the private sector.

I believe you won't find any credible, non partisan source to back up your statements here. And while we are well off track on the question in the OP, it was Roosevelt's manipulation of wages and government spending that prolonged the Great Depression by many years.

I have posted link after link to authoritative articles from nonpartisan and credible sources on this subject. You have furnished none.

But on the off chance that somebody might choose to educate themselves on this subject, here is one more:

Two UCLA economists say they have figured out why the Great Depression dragged on for almost 15 years, and they blame a suspect previously thought to be beyond reproach: President Franklin D. Roosevelt.

After scrutinizing Roosevelt's record for four years, Harold L. Cole and Lee E. Ohanian conclude in a new study that New Deal policies signed into law 71 years ago thwarted economic recovery for seven long years.

"Why the Great Depression lasted so long has always been a great mystery, and because we never really knew the reason, we have always worried whether we would have another 10- to 15-year economic slump," said Ohanian, vice chair of UCLA's Department of Economics. "We found that a relapse isn't likely unless lawmakers gum up a recovery with ill-conceived stimulus policies."

In an article in the August issue of the Journal of Political Economy, Ohanian and Cole blame specific anti-competition and pro-labor measures that Roosevelt promoted and signed into law June 16, 1933. . . .

More at:
FDR's policies prolonged Depression by 7 years, UCLA economists calculate / UCLA Newsroom

A fair wage is the value of labor established in a free market system by free people who have their rights secured and then are left alone to work for themselves. No government can ever be as effective in promoting prosperity for all.

I don't know anyone who would disagree with "No government can ever be as effective in promoting prosperity for all."

But, people who paid attention from 2001 to 2009 know that each business optimizing only itself fails us overall on a pretty regular basis. They have their role of individual optimization and government has their role of serving we, the people when business fails.

Only a fool would think that it's all one way or the other.

 

[Foxfyre]

That's not true. Every recession since 80s resulted in a long slump. The term "jobless recovery" was coined in early 90s.

The recessions before that were created by Fed fighting off inflation. As soon as Fed decided that the economy had suffered enough it would lower the rates and started recovery. But recent recessions happened when the inflation was already low, so Fed could not do much about it. Meaning slow recovery -- the harder is the initial shock, the longer the depression.



You've got your logic backwards. It's the severity of recession that prompted the government response, not the other way around.



People making that argument are called military Keynesians. The government spending only helps the economy if it buys military equipment. That's nuts.



But the government can do what private sector won't -- increase spending when facing a weak economy.



You must have been living under the rock in the past years. Haven't you heard about the Fed and the printing press? The economy is awash with money. Companies in particular are sitting on mountains of cash they don't want to spend.

Government spending in these conditions won't crowd out the private sector.

I believe you won't find any credible, non partisan source to back up your statements here. And while we are well off track on the question in the OP, it was Roosevelt's manipulation of wages and government spending that prolonged the Great Depression by many years.

I have posted link after link to authoritative articles from nonpartisan and credible sources on this subject. You have furnished none.

But on the off chance that somebody might choose to educate themselves on this subject, here is one more:

Two UCLA economists say they have figured out why the Great Depression dragged on for almost 15 years, and they blame a suspect previously thought to be beyond reproach: President Franklin D. Roosevelt.

After scrutinizing Roosevelt's record for four years, Harold L. Cole and Lee E. Ohanian conclude in a new study that New Deal policies signed into law 71 years ago thwarted economic recovery for seven long years.

"Why the Great Depression lasted so long has always been a great mystery, and because we never really knew the reason, we have always worried whether we would have another 10- to 15-year economic slump," said Ohanian, vice chair of UCLA's Department of Economics. "We found that a relapse isn't likely unless lawmakers gum up a recovery with ill-conceived stimulus policies."

In an article in the August issue of the Journal of Political Economy, Ohanian and Cole blame specific anti-competition and pro-labor measures that Roosevelt promoted and signed into law June 16, 1933. . . .

More at:
FDR's policies prolonged Depression by 7 years, UCLA economists calculate / UCLA Newsroom

A fair wage is the value of labor established in a free market system by free people who have their rights secured and then are left alone to work for themselves. No government can ever be as effective in promoting prosperity for all.

I don't know anyone who would disagree with "No government can ever be as effective in promoting prosperity for all."

But, people who paid attention from 2001 to 2009 know that each business optimizing only itself fails us overall on a pretty regular basis. They have their role of individual optimization and government has their role of serving we, the people when business fails.

Only a fool would think that it's all one way or the other.

The private sector does not pretend to be anything other than self serving with a profit motive. But secure the rights of the people and leave the private sector alone to do that, and it will benefit all far better than any government ever can.

Only a fool thinks that the federal government that we have intends to serve anybody or anything that does not increase the power, influence, prestige, and personal fortunes of those in government. The difference is that government pretends and deceives us that it does it for us when it is entirely self serving. And government self service benefits nobody but government.

Those who benefit from government do so because they can benefit government. When the government no longer needs them, they will no longer be able to count on those benefits.

 

[ilia25]

Every other severe recession we have had has righted itself within a fairly short period without government help.

That's not true. Every recession since 80s resulted in a long slump. The term "jobless recovery" was coined in early 90s.

The recessions before that were created by Fed fighting off inflation. As soon as Fed decided that the economy had suffered enough it would lower the rates and started recovery. But recent recessions happened when the inflation was already low, so Fed could not do much about it. Meaning slow recovery -- the harder is the initial shock, the longer the depression.



You've got your logic backwards. It's the severity of recession that prompted the government response, not the other way around.



People making that argument are called military Keynesians. The government spending only helps the economy if it buys military equipment. That's nuts.



But the government can do what private sector won't -- increase spending when facing a weak economy.



You must have been living under the rock in the past years. Haven't you heard about the Fed and the printing press? The economy is awash with money. Companies in particular are sitting on mountains of cash they don't want to spend.

Government spending in these conditions won't crowd out the private sector.

I believe you won't find any credible, non partisan source to back up your statements here.

So why haven't you disputed a single one of them?

 

[thereisnospoon]

Sure, in the long run it fixes itself. But not before it leaves millions unemployed for years.



On the contrary -- it prevented another Great Depression for so many years that we forgot the lessons. Then it happened again.




And where was the bottom? 25% unemployed? Or 75%? And how long it would take to crawl back?

That is not the point. The federal government has been running up huge debt, money we do not have to artificially prop up the economy.

No, unemployment is the point. You, like many other people, for some reason think that unemployment is a punishment for past sins. Or a bitter medicine that has to be endured for the economy to get better.

Except that comforting picture has nothing to do with reality. Even you should be able to understand that preventing millions of able and willing people from working cannot possibly solve anything. Especially the debt problem. On the contrary, it makes it harder to pay off the debt.

Unemployment is not a solution, it is a problem. Moreover, it's a technical issue, and totally avoidable given the right monetary and fiscal policy.

Keynes called it a magneto problem. There is nothing wrong with capitalism, he argued, no more than with a stalled engine. You just have to crank it long enough and it will start again.

Not that I expect you to understand any of this.

Either the band aid gets pulled off slowly and the pain lasts a long time, or pull it off quickly. The pain is more intense but lasts just a moment.

The economy is not working that way. The opposite is true. The bigger the shock, the more chance that it will overwhelm the standard policy response and put the economy into a long depression.

In the economic world, unemployment is a direct result of economic cycles.
What goes up, must come down and once it reaches bottom, goes back up once again.
It is what it is.
Government interference prolongs the negative.
Where you go this "past sins" idea from is a mystery.
Comfort has nothing to do with anything. Who the hell claims we have a right to 'comfort"..
Shock to the system is just what is required.
Federal policy is political. This administration has a goal of "we will do whatever it takes to not be the administration remembered for an economic downturn."....
If you really believe the POTUS' policies are in place for our benefit, you are naive.
The President is saving his own ass.
How long do you think the federal government can tip toe around this issue by borrowing trillions of dollars of which there is no fiscal possibility of ever recovering?
You people do not realize that in order for the federal government to borrow money, other countries must buy our debt. If the debt becomes too great which would signify a negative Return on investment, these countries will STOP buying debt. Once that happens, the jig is up and we are broke.
BTW, Keynesian economic theory has been proved a dismal failure. Don't even mention that progressive socialist bullshit to me.

 

[PMZ]

I believe you won't find any credible, non partisan source to back up your statements here. And while we are well off track on the question in the OP, it was Roosevelt's manipulation of wages and government spending that prolonged the Great Depression by many years.

I have posted link after link to authoritative articles from nonpartisan and credible sources on this subject. You have furnished none.

But on the off chance that somebody might choose to educate themselves on this subject, here is one more:



A fair wage is the value of labor established in a free market system by free people who have their rights secured and then are left alone to work for themselves. No government can ever be as effective in promoting prosperity for all.

I don't know anyone who would disagree with "No government can ever be as effective in promoting prosperity for all."

But, people who paid attention from 2001 to 2009 know that each business optimizing only itself fails us overall on a pretty regular basis. They have their role of individual optimization and government has their role of serving we, the people when business fails.

Only a fool would think that it's all one way or the other.

The private sector does not pretend to be anything other than self serving with a profit motive. But secure the rights of the people and leave the private sector alone to do that, and it will benefit all far better than any government ever can.

Only a fool thinks that the federal government that we have intends to serve anybody or anything that does not increase the power, influence, prestige, and personal fortunes of those in government. The difference is that government pretends and deceives us that it does it for us when it is entirely self serving. And government self service benefits nobody but government.

Those who benefit from government do so because they can benefit government. When the government no longer needs them, they will no longer be able to count on those benefits.

You appear to be unable to distinguish between democracy and tyranny. And between macro and micro economics. And between the real world and the one that you've been told to want.

Some pretty big obstacles between you and the truth there.

 

[PMZ]

That is not the point. The federal government has been running up huge debt, money we do not have to artificially prop up the economy.

No, unemployment is the point. You, like many other people, for some reason think that unemployment is a punishment for past sins. Or a bitter medicine that has to be endured for the economy to get better.

Except that comforting picture has nothing to do with reality. Even you should be able to understand that preventing millions of able and willing people from working cannot possibly solve anything. Especially the debt problem. On the contrary, it makes it harder to pay off the debt.

Unemployment is not a solution, it is a problem. Moreover, it's a technical issue, and totally avoidable given the right monetary and fiscal policy.

Keynes called it a magneto problem. There is nothing wrong with capitalism, he argued, no more than with a stalled engine. You just have to crank it long enough and it will start again.

Not that I expect you to understand any of this.

Either the band aid gets pulled off slowly and the pain lasts a long time, or pull it off quickly. The pain is more intense but lasts just a moment.

The economy is not working that way. The opposite is true. The bigger the shock, the more chance that it will overwhelm the standard policy response and put the economy into a long depression.

In the economic world, unemployment is a direct result of economic cycles.
What goes up, must come down and once it reaches bottom, goes back up once again.
It is what it is.
Government interference prolongs the negative.
Where you go this "past sins" idea from is a mystery.
Comfort has nothing to do with anything. Who the hell claims we have a right to 'comfort"..
Shock to the system is just what is required.
Federal policy is political. This administration has a goal of "we will do whatever it takes to not be the administration remembered for an economic downturn."....
If you really believe the POTUS' policies are in place for our benefit, you are naive.
The President is saving his own ass.
How long do you think the federal government can tip toe around this issue by borrowing trillions of dollars of which there is no fiscal possibility of ever recovering?
You people do not realize that in order for the federal government to borrow money, other countries must buy our debt. If the debt becomes too great which would signify a negative Return on investment, these countries will STOP buying debt. Once that happens, the jig is up and we are broke.
BTW, Keynesian economic theory has been proved a dismal failure. Don't even mention that progressive socialist bullshit to me.

Show me evidence that "Keynesian economic theory has been proved a dismal failure."

And further evidence that wealthy people will build factories in the face of low demand.

 

[Foxfyre]

That's not true. Every recession since 80s resulted in a long slump. The term "jobless recovery" was coined in early 90s.

The recessions before that were created by Fed fighting off inflation. As soon as Fed decided that the economy had suffered enough it would lower the rates and started recovery. But recent recessions happened when the inflation was already low, so Fed could not do much about it. Meaning slow recovery -- the harder is the initial shock, the longer the depression.



You've got your logic backwards. It's the severity of recession that prompted the government response, not the other way around.



People making that argument are called military Keynesians. The government spending only helps the economy if it buys military equipment. That's nuts.



But the government can do what private sector won't -- increase spending when facing a weak economy.



You must have been living under the rock in the past years. Haven't you heard about the Fed and the printing press? The economy is awash with money. Companies in particular are sitting on mountains of cash they don't want to spend.

Government spending in these conditions won't crowd out the private sector.

I believe you won't find any credible, non partisan source to back up your statements here.

So why haven't you disputed a single one of them?

I believe I have. Again I have provided a number of links that dispute most or all of your statements. And you have yet to provide a single credible source to support your statements.

 

[PMZ]

Further, show us evidence that Europe's austerity recovery from Bush's great Recession worked better than our Keynesian recovery did.

 

[Foxfyre]

I don't know anyone who would disagree with "No government can ever be as effective in promoting prosperity for all."

But, people who paid attention from 2001 to 2009 know that each business optimizing only itself fails us overall on a pretty regular basis. They have their role of individual optimization and government has their role of serving we, the people when business fails.

Only a fool would think that it's all one way or the other.

The private sector does not pretend to be anything other than self serving with a profit motive. But secure the rights of the people and leave the private sector alone to do that, and it will benefit all far better than any government ever can.

Only a fool thinks that the federal government that we have intends to serve anybody or anything that does not increase the power, influence, prestige, and personal fortunes of those in government. The difference is that government pretends and deceives us that it does it for us when it is entirely self serving. And government self service benefits nobody but government.

Those who benefit from government do so because they can benefit government. When the government no longer needs them, they will no longer be able to count on those benefits.

You appear to be unable to distinguish between democracy and tyranny. And between macro and micro economics. And between the real world and the one that you've been told to want.

Some pretty big obstacles between you and the truth there.

And you seem to be a paid stooge or detractor assigned to derail threads or else you have such poor reading comprehension that you honestly can't understand what is being said.

Hmmm. I wonder which of us is as we seem to be to the other?

 

[thereisnospoon]

That's not true. Every recession since 80s resulted in a long slump. The term "jobless recovery" was coined in early 90s.

The recessions before that were created by Fed fighting off inflation. As soon as Fed decided that the economy had suffered enough it would lower the rates and started recovery. But recent recessions happened when the inflation was already low, so Fed could not do much about it. Meaning slow recovery -- the harder is the initial shock, the longer the depression.



You've got your logic backwards. It's the severity of recession that prompted the government response, not the other way around.



People making that argument are called military Keynesians. The government spending only helps the economy if it buys military equipment. That's nuts.



But the government can do what private sector won't -- increase spending when facing a weak economy.



You must have been living under the rock in the past years. Haven't you heard about the Fed and the printing press? The economy is awash with money. Companies in particular are sitting on mountains of cash they don't want to spend.

Government spending in these conditions won't crowd out the private sector.

I believe you won't find any credible, non partisan source to back up your statements here.

So why haven't you disputed a single one of them?

It is not up to the OP to dispute anything. The burden of proof is on you.
This is right out of the Lib playbook. Throw statements out whether true/accurate or not and then demand others prove them wrong.
Nce try. That doesn't wash.
You make the claim, you prove it.
We don't prove negatives here.

 

[ilia25]

I believe you won't find any credible, non partisan source to back up your statements here.

So why haven't you disputed a single one of them?

I believe I have.

No, you have not. And I dare you to point out which of them you think is false.