quote:

Originally posted by Capitalizt * Civil unrest will break out before the end of the year. The Military and Guard will be called up to try to stop it. They won't be able to. Big cities are at risk of becoming a free-fire death zone. If you live in one, figure out how you can get out and live somewhere else if you detect signs that yours is starting to go "feral"; witness New Orleans after Katrina for how fast, and how bad, it can get.

I can't wait till December.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by ******** Seplling don't demonstrate intelligence and educatoin - knowing does.

the newspapers are fucked

___________________
"I think the scientific and the artistic spirit have something in common. The scientist wants not only to learn the facts, but to understand how they cohere, fit together and make a whole. He even uses criteria such as beauty and symmetry to help decide which theory he wants.

The scientist cannot capture the whole cosmos in thought. In his mind he makes a kind of microcosm, which we see as an analogue of the cosmos. In this way we try to get a feeling for the whole. The artist, I suppose, gets a feeling for the whole some other way.”

David Bohm in “Art, Dialogue and the Implicate Order”, published in On Creativity RC (Routledge Classics)

quote:

Originally posted by Clovis I can't wait till December.

Indeed; I rather preferred when these people were relegated to shouting from the street corners. One of the unfortunate side effects of the internet is that one has to dig a little deeper to realize just how ridiculous they are.

With that in mind, I looked Mr. Denninger up. It seems he keeps an online resume. However--rather unsurprisingly--it contains no hints as to the source of his macroeconomic expertise. In fact, I found it rather notable that it contains no indication of any education at all.

But I suppose we should nonetheless carefully consider his unsupported predictions when making important policy decisions. After all, he has a blog!

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter Indeed; I rather preferred when these people were relegated to shouting from the street corners. One of the unfortunate side effects of the internet is that one has to dig a little deeper to realize just how ridiculous they are. With that in mind, I looked Mr. Denninger up. It seems he keeps an online resume. However--rather unsurprisingly--it contains no hints as to the source of his macroeconomic expertise. In fact, I found it rather notable that it contains no indication of any education at all. But I suppose we should nonetheless carefully consider his unsupported predictions when making important policy decisions. After all, he has a blog!

I have this thread bookmarked for reference at a later date.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by ******** Seplling don't demonstrate intelligence and educatoin - knowing does.

quote:

Originally posted by Clovis George Bush did nothing conservative?

nope, there wasnt much fiscally conservative about the bush administration at all. Huge increase in government and in spending, and its a disgrace that a republican congress let him get away with it for so long.

I have no idea how you are attempting to blame tax cuts for our current economic situation. Can you make a specific connection between the two? (rather then "look at the last 8 years")

Money is always better off in the hands of those who earned it, it holds more value to them. The out of touch beauracrats in washington put little value for tax payer dollars which leads to waste.

quote:

Originally posted by Capitalizt Even if they don't spend the money and chose to save or invest it instead, it would still do a hell of alot more good for the country than if the government gets it's greedy claws on it. Money is never doing "nothing" unless it is being truly useless by sitting under a mattress. Fortunately most rich people don't put their money under a mattress. They tend to put it into banks which then lend money to entrepreneurs and consumers..or they invest it in other productive enterprises which create jobs and wealth. Contrary to what the left believes, money left in the hands of the people who earned it is never "lost" or "wasted". It is always working to improve the economy in one way or another..and each dollar is likely to do much more good in their hands than under the direction of a disconnected bureaucrat in Washington.

I couldnt agree with you more.

quote:

Originally posted by djjoshuaallen I have no idea how you are attempting to blame tax cuts for our current economic situation. Can you make a specific connection between the two? (rather then "look at the last 8 years")

That's never been the insinuation - tax cuts didn't create the crisis, but they sure as hell won't solve it. I've yet to see a single person address the one empirical fact that ruins the tax cut argument. The fact that only 16% of money transferred back into the hands of taxpayers last year by George W. Bush was spent. What sort of stimulus does that make if only 16% actually stimulates the economy, and the rest goes to pay down debt or evaporate into the bowels of the stock market? I'm all for personal liberty, but this has nothing to do with it. We need to stimulate consumer demand, and tax cuts don't cut it.

quote:

Money is always better off in the hands of those who earned it, it holds more value to them. The out of touch beauracrats in washington put little value for tax payer dollars which leads to waste.

Can you account for the fact that a much greater proportion of government spending stimulates aggregate demand than tax cuts do? Can we not at least agree that this is the problem right now? How do you propose transferring money back to people who won't spend it is a better idea than spending it in such a way that 75% of it goes directly toward stimulating demand. Do I wish that number was 100%? Hell yes. I was very disappointed to see so much of the stimulus wasted on tax cuts.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov The fact that only 16% of money transferred back into the hands of taxpayers last year by George W. Bush was spent. What sort of stimulus does that make if only 16% actually stimulates the economy, and the rest goes to pay down debt or evaporate into the bowels of the stock market? I'm all for personal liberty, but this has nothing to do with it. We need to stimulate consumer demand, and tax cuts don't cut it.

Your arguement only holds weight here because of the timing, which was one where most people had recently been over extending themselves for years with debt which is one of the leading reasons for this crisis in the first place. That is why they chose to pay down debt, that and the looming credit crunch that instilled fear in the consumer. Your arguement has little relevance when held against the idea overall that putting more money in the hands of the consumer does in fact stimulate economic growth.

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov Can you account for the fact that a much greater proportion of government spending stimulates aggregate demand than tax cuts do? Can we not at least agree that this is the problem right now? How do you propose transferring money back to people who won't spend it is a better idea than spending it in such a way that 75% of it goes directly toward stimulating demand. Do I wish that number was 100%?

I cant agree with you here either because the jobs that will be created by 500+ billion in government spending will be completly dependant on the government dollars, temporary, and will not produce the private sector jobs that make the american economy what it is. Im not sure how you have drawn your conclusions as to how the stimulus money will directly stimulate the economy, yet putting money in the hands of consumers will not. Do you frown on the american consumer for being reponsible with their spending for once? However, not all of us over extended ourselves into debt, but I applaud those who paid there bills with the little bit of extra money they recieved, although the government would rather them have spent it and an additional $600 plunging themselves into even more debt.

Governement still has yet to come up with a well established plan moving forward, or a solution to the real problems with our financial system. In the meantime, we need to suffer for our wreckless spending and save our cash and pay off our debts. It will hurt now, but recovery will come much faster. This can come faster with more expendible income in the hands of the consumers.

quote:

Originally posted by djjoshuaallen Your arguement only holds weight here because of the timing, which was one where most people had recently been over extending themselves for years with debt which is one of the leading reasons for this crisis in the first place. That is why they chose to pay down debt, that and the looming credit crunch that instilled fear in the consumer. Your arguement has little relevance when held against the idea overall that putting more money in the hands of the consumer does in fact stimulate economic growth.

Well timing is everything, no? Why advocate a policy that is ill-timed?

quote:

I cant agree with you here either because the jobs that will be created by 500+ billion in government spending will be completly dependant on the government dollars, temporary, and will not produce the private sector jobs that make the american economy what it is. Im not sure how you have drawn your conclusions as to how the stimulus money will directly stimulate the economy, yet putting money in the hands of consumers will not.

It's simple - tax refunds don't get spent. Employing people, even through temporary government-funded infrastructure projects does. What's likely to generate more demand in the economy, a tax refund or a new cohort of workers receiving paychecks? Furthermore, who do you think the government is contracting to do all of these projects? The answer is the private sector - government isn't spending for the sake of spending - it's spending to inject money directly into the private sector through contracts and wages (that will go toward payments on food, rent, etc.). The issue here is finding a semi-efficient way of increasing demand so that the private sector doesn't continue to contract - contraction leads to corporations failing, layoffs, etc. Stimulating demand ensures that these companies can succeed and that taxpayers can play around with their $50,000 salaries instead of their $600 tax refunds.

quote:

Do you frown on the american consumer for being reponsible with their spending for once?

Not at all. But I'm focused on the greater issue - the Americna economy. Private finances of individuals are far less important than saving the economic system that allows individuals to finance anything.

quote:

Governement still has yet to come up with a well established plan moving forward, or a solution to the real problems with our financial system. In the meantime, we need to suffer for our wreckless spending and save our cash and pay off our debts. It will hurt now, but recovery will come much faster. This can come faster with more expendible income in the hands of the consumers.

What data are you basing this on? Have you seen something to show tax cuts being more effective this time around than they were last time? All I've seen is data that suggests the opposite. You're right that the issue is income in the hands of the consumers - and tax refunds don't do much good when you're unemployed.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter Indeed; I rather preferred when these people were relegated to shouting from the street corners. One of the unfortunate side effects of the internet is that one has to dig a little deeper to realize just how ridiculous they are. With that in mind, I looked Mr. Denninger up. It seems he keeps an online resume. However--rather unsurprisingly--it contains no hints as to the source of his macroeconomic expertise. In fact, I found it rather notable that it contains no indication of any education at all. But I suppose we should nonetheless carefully consider his unsupported predictions when making important policy decisions. After all, he has a blog!

haha, yeah im amazed at how many people capitalizt listens to about economics when they aren't actually economists.

___________________

I didn't take that article seriously but did find it amusing .and thought it fit well with the "economy died" theme of this thread.

Things are going to get bad over the next few years but not that bad..at least not until the next super duper massively reflated fiat money bubble economy pops..and I don't expect that for 5-10 yrs.

My thesis has always been that world governments and central banks are going to succeed in going through one final period of massive reflation..throwing everything they have at the problem to prop things up again...and once debt levels get completely unmanageable and become impossible to pay down with a sound currency, they will finally be forced to let go and inflate them away.. At that point people will lose all faith in their money..and since faith is the only thing backing paper money these days, that is when the shit will really hit the fan and we will probably see circumstances like the article mentions.

Last edited by Capitalizt on Mar-12-2009 at 06:14

I like bursted bubbles.

___________________