The Graph of the Week, and a rant

N

NoDrama

Well-Known Member
napa23 said:
As for Ron Paul, yeah he's looking like the best to me out of all of them. But still not cutting it. He won't close the loopholes and tax breaks. He wants to legalize all drugs? MaryJane is harmless, coke and heroin are not. If you want an increase in gang wars and blood on the streets, sure that's fine. And he's all for liberty and giving people the right to do whatever they want, except when it comes to a woman's body. I like you though, good discussions, not just Obama bashing.
Click to expand...
Anyone can go to college, even if you have no credit, no life, no job, and no legs arms or face. The Government will make sure you get a student loan no matter what your situation is.. EVERYONE WHO APPLIES IS APPROVED!!

So your view on drugs is that the dangerous ones must be made illegal right? Is it your view that every dangerous activity should also be illegal?

I have done Coke numerous times in my life, not once have I ever had a problem. I can get it whenever I want, but its been almost 4 years since the last time I did any. I had a good time everytime.

Did you know way way more people die from car accidents than Illicit drugs? Do you think we should make cars Illegal? After all they CAN be dangerous. And while we are at it, we better make alcohol Illegal, it kills more people than all illicit drugs combined. Then there is the Tobacco, hell it kills more people than all illicit drugs, car accidents and alcohol combined. Dangerous, make it illegal. Did you know working on a highrise is dangerous, better make it illegal.

Garbage collection is the most dangerous job in the USA, make it illegal. police have a dangerous job, make it illegal. Guns are dangerous, make them illegal. Sharp knives can be dangerous, make it illegal. Bears are dangerous, make them illegal too. Running with scissors can be dangerous, we need to ensure laws are on the books prohibiting such activity. Eating Fatty foods high in cholesterol is also dangerous, best to make them illegal. Ever seen how dangerous FIRE is? We surely need laws banning fire, its way dangerous.

Do you see the slippery slope?

Ron Paul does not want to make abortion illegal, he wants the Federal Government to be powerless to make any decision and wants each state to make their own laws concerning abortion. Just because he is personally against it doesn't mean he has an agenda against it. Obviously RP is not a Heroin junky, yet he advocates for its legality.

RP isn't for anyone doing whatever they want either. he wants people to have the freedom to do whatever they want as long as it does not hinder or exclude the rights of anyone else.

As far as loopholes and tax breaks, well RP wants to End the Federal Reserve, if that were to happen all the tax laws would be instantly made obsolete. All the USA Tax laws are predicated on the USE of The Federal Reserve Note AKA the US Dollar. If the Fed were to be abolished, all the tax laws would have to be rewritten. You can bet YOU would probably be taxed far less.
 
napa23

napa23

Well-Known Member
I'm not ignoring you NoDrama, I have to drive across the state so I'll respond later. Even though we may disagree on politics, I wish you all the best. Keep it blazing people.
 
R

redivider

Well-Known Member
nodrama seems to forget that student loans are the ONLY loan in america that cannot be pardoned by ANY court...

no matter how many times you declare bankrupcy, you will ALWAYS pay that loan back.... that's why everybody's approved every single time....

ron paul is a closet racist. he's a washington insider with a hidden agenda hiding behind a facade of libertarianism. he believes that we should abolish the fed, even though the US dollar is one of the strongest currencies in the world. he wants to go back to the gold standard, even though going back to the gold standard would give OTHER nation's power over our currencies strength. with the Fed in control, only WE are in control of our monetary policy. and we've been very very very very good at maintaining our dollar's value.... he believes we should remove the federal government's powers so that the private sector can take control and squeeze what little is left out of the middle class. he's all for tyranny, he just calls it the free market and capitalism.

fuck ron paul.
 
WillyBagseed

WillyBagseed

Active Member
Doesn't matter what the graph shows, what I want to know is why is it the things people had access to from the 50's till the 70's are so bad for people to have today?

Cheap college : you could work part time and go to college full time at state schools and not be in debt for 20-30 years
not for profit medical care: speaks for itself
Infrastructure: We can't be taxing people to keep the roads, bridges, firehouses and schools running well now can we......... (sarcasm)

One parent of an average middle class American used to be able to provide for their family without both parents having to work. The average "blue collar" job now pays shit compared to back in the day. I see many jobs paying the same wages I made 30-35 years ago......... That is all good tho according to many.

etc.. etc....
 
sync0s

sync0s

Well-Known Member
redivider said:
nodrama seems to forget that student loans are the ONLY loan in america that cannot be pardoned by ANY court...

no matter how many times you declare bankrupcy, you will ALWAYS pay that loan back.... that's why everybody's approved every single time....

ron paul is a closet racist. he's a washington insider with a hidden agenda hiding behind a facade of libertarianism. he believes that we should abolish the fed, even though the US dollar is one of the strongest currencies in the world. he wants to go back to the gold standard, even though going back to the gold standard would give OTHER nation's power over our currencies strength. with the Fed in control, only WE are in control of our monetary policy. and we've been very very very very good at maintaining our dollar's value.... he believes we should remove the federal government's powers so that the private sector can take control and squeeze what little is left out of the middle class. he's all for tyranny, he just calls it the free market and capitalism.

fuck ron paul.
Click to expand...
That's hilarious. A hidden agenda hidden behind libertarianism. Using the one of the most unpopular political stances to claim power.

You call the massive deflation of the dollar us doing a good job??????

I officially am writing you off as not having a clue. Sorry.
 
mame

mame

Well-Known Member
The stimulus didn't "work" because it didn't completely fill the output gap, that is why all of the spending has not been enough. You can see yourself, for example, that in 2009 the output gap was over a trillion dollars for one year alone; Stimulus needs to fill about 3/4 of the output gap(because of multipliers you dont need to spend dollar for dollar to fill the gap) and in this case the stimulus should've lasted a couple of years... We're talking ~$1.5 Trillion in stimulus spending over two years. The Obama stimulus was very short, with most of it's effects taking place in the same year and it was not enough to fill the output gap for that year; Furthermore, the spending that took place was essentially replacing spending that would've happened at the state and local level, it just protected jobs that already existed and beefed up social safety nets at the local and state levels(so demand didn't actually rise as a result of the Obama stimulus, it just didn't fall as much as it could have)... Infrastructure on the other hand, is money spent on production that trickles throughout various sectors of the economy.

Basically what the graph really illistrates is just how much the Obama stimulus fell short; 800 billion isn't just a drop in the bucket, but the bucket is still far from full. Remember, we are in a liquidity trap and outside unproven monetary policy options (negative interest rates) fiscal stimulus is in fact the only way out (even WSJ has conceded this principle now).
 
DrFever

DrFever

New Member
napa23 said:
I don't see how those graphs prove that. I see that tax revenue has decreased, which republicans fail to pay attention to. I also see that spending has increased, but when the average american is spending less, who else is there to keep the market going? Does no one want to pay attention the the first half of my other post? Ok, so we shouldn't do anything about the levees, we should have this coastal restoration project? That doesn't cost any money? Explain this, I feel like I'm missing the point. What about the bridges, any thoughts on that? Should we let them deteriorate? By the way, democrats have agreed to compromise, to spending cuts. But what does that translate to? It translates to budget cuts in education, making it hard for people to afford college. That's a great idea huh?
Click to expand...
In the 12 years of the Reagan/Bush administrations, the United States went from being the world's largest creditor nation to the world's largest debtor. Many of those nations which had enjoyed huge trade surpluses started loaning that profit back to the United States with the stipulation that we work on our manufacturing, clean up our infrastructure, raise taxes, in short, clean up our act, so that investment in America makes sense! However, we didn't quite do that. There has been some shuffling around to try to conceal the real scope of the problem. Over the last several years, the Federal Government has been sending less tax money back to the states than it takes in in taxes. This means that the states have to borrow MORE money to cover their obligations. The net result is that the debt is being transferred to the states, to conceal its true size. The government will easily admit to a $3 trillion "publicly held" debt, grudgingly concede that it's "unfunded liability" brings that number to almost $7 trillion, but the real hard truth is that total government debt, state and federal, is now over $14 trillion dollars, or about 50,000 for every man, woman, and child inside the United States. Since 1960, the taxpayers have shelled out $15 trillion in interest payments alone, while the principal continues to rise. Yet another stunt the government has pulled is to "borrow" from the various trust funds under its control. Some $2 billion has vanished from the trust accounts of Native Americans (presently suing the Departments of the Interior and Treasury), and nearly ¾ of a TRILLION dollars has been removed from your Social Security retirement trust fund and spent in the last 8 years.

so really it doesn't matter who is president its fckt up period goes way back to johnson administration
 
DrFever

DrFever

New Member
But Nixon had to collateralize that debt somehow, and he hit upon the plan of quietly setting aside huge tracts of American land with their mineral rights in reserve to cover the outstanding debts. But since the American people were already angered over the war in Vietnam, Nixon couldn't very well admit that he was apportioning off chunks of the United States to the holders of foreign debt. So, Nixon invented the Environmental Protection Agency and passed draconian environmental laws which served to grab land with vast natural resources away from the owners and lock it away, and even more, prove to the holders of the foreign debt that US citizens were not drilling. mining, or otherwise developing those resources. From that day to this, as the government sinks deeper into debt, the government grabs more and more land, declares it a wilderness or "roadless area" or "heritage river" or "wetlands" or any one of over a dozen other such obfuscated labels, but in the end the result is the same. We The People may not use the land, in many cases are not even allowed to enter the land. This is not about conservation, it is about collateral. YOUR land is being stolen by the government and used to secure loans the government really had no business taking out in the first place. Given that the government cannot get out of debt, and is collateralizing more and more land to avoid foreclosure, the day is not long off when the people of the United States will one day wake up and discover they are no longer citizens, but tenants. The following map shows the current extent of all lands grabbed by the government under the guise of environmentalism.

​
In short, the United States is in deep trouble. We have lost a huge amount of our manufacturing capacity, and those products we still make do not compete well on the world market, despite the steady devaluation of the dollar. In short we have vast debts to pay and little to pay them with. Like the foolish Farmer we have sold the machinery that allowed us to prosper, and we stand around shaking our investment portfolios back and forth in the hopes that the money inside will somehow grow all by itself. It won't. It never has. The very best that can be said is that money gets moved from one person to the other. Those nations and banks to whom we owe money have been very patient indeed with us. They know that our economies are so tightly entwined that what hurts America will hurt them. But sooner or later, possibly after a market crash, someone, in order to pay their own debts, will demand their loans to the United States be paid. Rather than get caught with "bad paper", there will be a run on the United States government. In addition to the government debt of $14 trillion, our businesses are home to trillions more in foreign investment, kept here by the promise that the American taxpayer will be made to cover all losses. But with our manufacturing in decline and our schools producing far more lawyers than anything else, it should be obvious to the prudent observer that the American taxpayer, even if so inclined, may not be able to cover the losses of their own government, let alone a foreign investor. That has to be making them nervous as well.
 
DrFever

DrFever

New Member
i hope your not mocking me lol anyways here it is and let me tell you it will wake you up to the hard true facts of USA

even the roman empire once a great nation Fell , USSR fell and now usa will its inevitable fckt up but true the link says everything even the gold standard etc etc

and how corrupt everything really is

http://www.oicu2.com/afc/hellcoming.html
 
Charlie Ventura

Charlie Ventura

Active Member
DrFever said:
i hope your not mocking me lol anyways here it is and let me tell you it will wake you up to the hard true facts of USA

even the roman empire once a great nation Fell , USSR fell and now usa will its inevitable fckt up but true the link says everything even the gold standard etc etc

and how corrupt everything really is

http://www.oicu2.com/afc/hellcoming.html
Click to expand...
No way am I mocking you. It was a great post. I've printed it out and have it on my desk to share with other people. Also, thanks for the link. :)

I just downloaded and printed out the info from your link. Did you notice the quote from Congressman James Traficant, Jr.? Here's a guy who told the truth for years. He was an embarrassment to the establishment. He wasn't clean on his taxes, so they set the dogs of the IRS on him and put him away for awhile. That got him out of the spotlight and forgotten. Notice the tax cheats in the Obama administration, and those who support it, are getting away Scott free.
 
DrFever

DrFever

New Member
if you really think about it as you read it more you wonder if what JFK did passing that bill was signing his death warrant

John F. Kennedy issued an Executive Order 11110, requiring the Treasury Department to start printing and issuing silver certificates for the silver then remaining in the US Treasury.
Kennedy decided that by returning to the constitution, which states that only Congress shall coin and regulate money, the soaring national debt could be reduced by not paying interest to the bankers of the Federal Reserve System, who print paper money then loan it to the government at interest. This was the reason he signed Executive Order 11110 which called for the issuance of $4,292,893,815 in United States Notes through the U.S. Treasury rather than the traditional Federal Reserve System.
 
Charlie Ventura

Charlie Ventura

Active Member
^^^ I'm the proud owner of some Kennedy silver half dollars, and also some silver dollars. I take them out from time to time to show friends what REAL money looks like. They make such a beautiful sound as you clink them together. :)
 
N

NoDrama

Well-Known Member
redivider said:
it's not just bachman.... ;)

eric cantor, boehner, the list is long and it's brutal...

republicans know that stimulus works to create jobs, they make the argument FOR it.... even the supposed heads of the party.... there's little to add really...
Click to expand...
Its everyone...EXCEPT RON PAUL!
 
mame

mame

Well-Known Member
jeff f said:
so trickle down works?
Click to expand...
It's not the same, Jeff.

I'm not going to go over this over and over because it's simple economics that you should know by now but it basically boils down to the fact that the rich spend less as a share of their income than the poor and middle class; Because of this fact, cutting taxes on the rich almost always ends up increasing the size of their savings account and there is no hard evidence to suggest that it was worth it at all. Direct government spending is different because you're putting money into the hands of people who spend all of it, therefore giving a country the maximum economic benefit.

This is where multipliers for government spending comes into play. For example, the Bush tax cuts, most of which went to the wealthy, generated less than a quarter on every dollar of "spending"; Social programs such as food stamps, on the other hand, have multipliers above 1 - which means that for every dollar the government is spending it is actually creating economic activity that wouldn't have happened otherwise. The reason it works out like this for both examples has mostly to do with the tendency of the rich to save and for the poor to spend... Because of this tendency stimulus measures should almost always be targetted at the bottom to ensure maximum efficiency of government spending.

I can go even further and assert (in truth) that because of this tendency for the rich to save, progressive taxation is quite necessary. AS i've argued in the past on these boards, it is natural in a market economy for wealth to redistribute upwards - which leads to economic volatility and widening income inequality. Ideally, the government would tax the rich just enough to completely counteract this natural phenomenon and doing so would lead to stability both in terms of stable economic growth and stemming income inequality... You could Tax the rich even heavier and reverse income inequality to an extent, via redistribution, but you'd likely run into a supply side crunch and costs would necessarily have to go down.

Personally, I believe in the principle of the Rahn curve, in which government spending can help the economy until a certain point - and then it is hindering the economy. Rahn's curve argues spending as a % of GDP should be 15-25% of GDP in normal times, which today's government can easily fit into as even with tons of lost revenues and increased safety net spending we're only at ~23-24% of GDP... Prior to the 08 recession government spending clocked in at 19%. Now, I dont completely agree with Rahn's findings - in that the evidence shows that government should probably be closer to 21-25% of GDP to, as I said before, counteract a naturally occuring widening income gap that has eroded out middle class despite government spending often hovering between 18-19% or so. Now, I want to make it very clear as I hope I already have - I am not for unlimited government... I am however, for government that works effectively and I believe
 
jeff f

jeff f

New Member
mame said:
It's not the same, Jeff.

I'm not going to go over this over and over because it's simple economics that you should know by now but it basically boils down to the fact that the rich spend less as a share of their income than the poor and middle class; Because of this fact, cutting taxes on the rich almost always ends up increasing the size of their savings account and there is no hard evidence to suggest that it was worth it at all. Direct government spending is different because you're putting money into the hands of people who spend all of it, therefore giving a country the maximum economic benefit.

This is where multipliers for government spending comes into play. For example, the Bush tax cuts, most of which went to the wealthy, generated less than a quarter on every dollar of "spending"; Social programs such as food stamps, on the other hand, have multipliers above 1 - which means that for every dollar the government is spending it is actually creating economic activity that wouldn't have happened otherwise. The reason it works out like this for both examples has mostly to do with the tendency of the rich to save and for the poor to spend... Because of this tendency stimulus measures should almost always be targetted at the bottom to ensure maximum efficiency of government spending.

I can go even further and assert (in truth) that because of this tendency for the rich to save, progressive taxation is quite necessary. AS i've argued in the past on these boards, it is natural in a market economy for wealth to redistribute upwards - which leads to economic volatility and widening income inequality. Ideally, the government would tax the rich just enough to completely counteract this natural phenomenon and doing so would lead to stability both in terms of stable economic growth and stemming income inequality... You could Tax the rich even heavier and reverse income inequality to an extent, via redistribution, but you'd likely run into a supply side crunch and costs would necessarily have to go down.

Personally, I believe in the principle of the Rahn curve, in which government spending can help the economy until a certain point - and then it is hindering the economy. Rahn's curve argues spending as a % of GDP should be 15-25% of GDP in normal times, which today's government can easily fit into as even with tons of lost revenues and increased safety net spending we're only at ~23-24% of GDP... Prior to the 08 recession government spending clocked in at 19%. Now, I dont completely agree with Rahn's findings - in that the evidence shows that government should probably be closer to 21-25% of GDP to, as I said before, counteract a naturally occuring widening income gap that has eroded out middle class despite government spending often hovering between 18-19% or so. Now, I want to make it very clear as I hope I already have - I am not for unlimited government... I am however, for government that works effectively and I believe
Click to expand...

ummm, no.

this rich "saving their money" is where you lose your way.

if they put their money in a shoe box at the bottom of the bed, i would agree. but they dont.

they invest in things, bonds, buildings, bombs, boomerangs etc. and by investing in those things, they create wealth by adding value to things.

i could give a welfare recipient money all day long. he will keep spending it on things like food, casinos, lottery tickets, potato chips etc.

the poor guy isnt going to buy a mountain, higher a bunch of people to mine the coal, cut the timber, drill for gas, etc. those activities create value, ie wealth.

your method is like a bunch of guys sitting around a card table, they just keep handing the money back and forth without adding value.

you also work from a very narrow minded thinking of zero sum. in your veiw, the pie is only so big and never gets any bigger or smaller. thats just horse shit.

in order for an economy to accel it has to add value. the pie gets bigger when you add value, mine things, invent new stuff, etc. redistribution does absolutely nothing except temporarily move money from one poker player to the next.

in your views, you reward the non-producers, and punish the producers. its really that simple. and that is a recipe for disaster as evidenced by world economies of today.
 
mame

mame

Well-Known Member
No, the rich do in fact save much more than the poor; Sure, they invest too - but that does not mean they dont save. From Moody's :
Give the wealthiest Americans a tax cut and history suggests they will save the money rather than spend it.

Tax cuts in 2001 and 2003 under President George W. Bush were followed by increases in the saving rate among the rich, according to data from Moody’s Analytics Inc. When taxes were raised under Bill Clinton, the saving rate fell.
Click to expand...
The article goes into the numbers, but the point is clear; Tax cuts lead to increased savings, which is an undesirable effect for stimulus and is the main reason "trickle down" economics ala Reaganomics does not work in practice.
 
N

NoDrama

Well-Known Member
mame said:
This is where multipliers for government spending comes into play. For example, the Bush tax cuts, most of which went to the wealthy, generated less than a quarter on every dollar of "spending"; Social programs such as food stamps, on the other hand, have multipliers above 1 - which means that for every dollar the government is spending it is actually creating economic activity that wouldn't have happened otherwise. The reason it works out like this for both examples has mostly to do with the tendency of the rich to save and for the poor to spend... Because of this tendency stimulus measures should almost always be targetted at the bottom to ensure maximum efficiency of government spending.
Click to expand...
Dollars cannot create more dollars Mame. They can only do one thing and one thing only...pay off debt. Lets say you go to a hotel and get a room, it costs you $100. You pay with a nice crisp Benny. The hotel owner hurries off and goes down to the Bakery and pays off his morning coffee rolls debt that he owes in the amount of $100. The Baker then takes his $100 and pays the dentist for the filling he got last week, the bill was $100. The dentist in turn takes the $100 and goes to the original hotel to pay his debt off for the room he uses when he and his mistress need time alone. The Hotel owner places the same $100 in his wallet and awaits for the next debt that needs to be paid. You go up to your room and relax a bit , then decide to take a shower, once in the shower you realize that the hot water doesn't work, you call down to the desk to complain and find out the whole water heater isn't working. The hotel owner refunds your $100 and bids you a good day and you go off to find another hotel that has hot water. How has money multiplied? It hasn't, it has only extinguished debt, it has provided no net gain to GDP.

You can only have the multiplier effect if the money is used to enhance consumption and new loans are taken out to feed that consumption. Money can only be created out of Debt, No other process can create our US Dollars. Stimulus can only try and goose this consumption, it cannot replace it. If the Economic future looks uncertain or bad, people will take the stimulus and pay off debt. If the future looks bright and stable, people will either pay off debt or consume more or just save the money. Two of those scenarios do not increase GDP. One of those scenarios DESTROYS money supply at a rate of 1 to 9. Paying debt off Destroys money in the reverse process of credit (money) creation. This is where we are at, destroying money by paying off debt, the worst case scenario for a system that absolutely requires everlasting inflation.

Right now, people have more debt than ever before. How many people do you suppose used their homes as piggy banks? How many millions are probably just barely hanging on to that underwater home right now? When I lived in the city, not a single one of my neighbors actually owned the homes they lived in. All of them were still paying mortgages and car loans and some of the younger ones still had college loans they were paying on. And these were all responsible people who all had jobs with benefits and worked 40 hours a week. What do you think they are going to do when they see what looks like a depression coming? Think they are gonna splurge on more home remodeling? More cars? More Loans? If they aren't getting the loans there is no effect really.

Government may MULTIPLY its own tax receipt benefits by increasing others net income after they stimulate, but this isn't creating money either.
 
mame

mame

Well-Known Member
Multipliers dont just take into account that a poor person spends every dollar they recieve/earn they also take into account that the rich will hold onto it.

If you are rich and you are taxed 10 dollars and the government turns around and gives that to a poor person and they spend it all; Now, if the government instead just lets you keep your 10 dollars via a tax cut, you are likely to save a few dollars(lets say 3 dollars) of that 10 and spend/invest the rest. So, the government takes the 10 dollars taxed, counts 10 because the poor person spent it all and then counts 3 more because you would've removed 3 dollars from circulation for an extended period of time by saving - leaving them with 13, or a multiplier of 1.3. Inversely, if they had gave you a 10 dollar tax cut than they most likely would have seen 7 dollars worth of economic activity, because you save.

Now, there are other effects, like crowding out. In normal times, excessive government investment crowds out private investment and of course that's bad, but in this situation - the liquidity trap - there is no crowding out; Now is that absolute best time for any government spending (TBH, I'm pretty sure I didn't tell you much of anything you dont already know but it doesn't hurt to make the thread a little easier to follow...).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top