Reply
Highlighted
Recognized Social Butterfly

Re: Democratic socialism

340 Views
Message 11 of 280

@NOTHAPPENING wrote:

@sp362 wrote:

@rk9152 wrote:

@Panjandrum wrote:

sp362:  Richva, Personally, I think the recovery was longer and less energetic than it would have been if there was a more aggressive stimulus from the start (which was proposed and reduced).

 

 

I agree 100%.


In a way, I agree too. My preference would have been for the government to have gotten out of the way and allowed the free economy to recover. 

 

On the other hand, if the answer was made to go the Keynesian route, I would have preferred to go full bore Keynesian in the short term.

 

Interestingly, with all the whining about tax cutting, it included tax cuts. 

 

The infrastructure was to be a major element and yet well after the fact Obama joked that the shovel ready jobs were't all that shovel ready. That seems a strange thing since the pols are still talking about more taxes so we can do more infrastructure work. It seems that stating the goal is more important than figuring out how to accomplish the objective.

 

 


Since consumers and businesses had stopped spending, what do you think would have happened if the Government had stopped as well?  There is a very good chance your solution would have ended in a depression.


Have you considered what consumers and businesses would do if the government "slimmed down" and got out of the way?  With more money in THEIR pockets, the economy might just expand!


And what would your answer have been to the economic crisis?  What is your idea of the Government "getting out of the way"?  Less regulations?  Less oversight?  Fewer laws?

Report Inappropriate Content
Highlighted
Recognized Social Butterfly

Re: Democratic socialism

344 Views
Message 12 of 280

@rk9152 wrote:

@sp362 wrote:


And who were the builder's customers?  If they were unable to sell their goods, they would not be hiring him to do anything.  See Olderscout66's previous post for a basic Economics lesson.  You seem to be the one who is intent on insisting they are right despite your saying you had little knowledge of Economics and did not want to be involved in a discussion of Economics.


Are all customers on welfare - or even a majority? It does sound like an Economics lesson but not a free market Economics lesson - that other one.


As usual, you are taking statements out of context.  The original remark by the poster was that money did not trickle up (he seemed to believe that Supply Side Economics was the answer to everything) and that he never received a paycheck from anybody on Government Assistance.  Since a percentage of people in the US are on assistance, that statement was simply false.  And, that is a lesson in the free market and the fact that your end-user is eventually paying the bill.

Report Inappropriate Content
Highlighted
Honored Social Butterfly

Re: Democratic socialism

342 Views
Message 13 of 280

@sp362 wrote:

@rk9152 wrote:

@Panjandrum wrote:

sp362:  Richva, Personally, I think the recovery was longer and less energetic than it would have been if there was a more aggressive stimulus from the start (which was proposed and reduced).

 

 

I agree 100%.


In a way, I agree too. My preference would have been for the government to have gotten out of the way and allowed the free economy to recover. 

 

On the other hand, if the answer was made to go the Keynesian route, I would have preferred to go full bore Keynesian in the short term.

 

Interestingly, with all the whining about tax cutting, it included tax cuts. 

 

The infrastructure was to be a major element and yet well after the fact Obama joked that the shovel ready jobs were't all that shovel ready. That seems a strange thing since the pols are still talking about more taxes so we can do more infrastructure work. It seems that stating the goal is more important than figuring out how to accomplish the objective.

 

 


Since consumers and businesses had stopped spending, what do you think would have happened if the Government had stopped as well?  There is a very good chance your solution would have ended in a depression.


Have you considered what consumers and businesses would do if the government "slimmed down" and got out of the way?  With more money in THEIR pockets, the economy might just expand!

Report Inappropriate Content
Highlighted
Recognized Social Butterfly

Re: Democratic socialism

341 Views
Message 14 of 280

@rk9152 wrote:

@Panjandrum wrote:

sp362:  Richva, Personally, I think the recovery was longer and less energetic than it would have been if there was a more aggressive stimulus from the start (which was proposed and reduced).

 

 

I agree 100%.


In a way, I agree too. My preference would have been for the government to have gotten out of the way and allowed the free economy to recover. 

 

On the other hand, if the answer was made to go the Keynesian route, I would have preferred to go full bore Keynesian in the short term.

 

Interestingly, with all the whining about tax cutting, it included tax cuts. 

 

The infrastructure was to be a major element and yet well after the fact Obama joked that the shovel ready jobs were't all that shovel ready. That seems a strange thing since the pols are still talking about more taxes so we can do more infrastructure work. It seems that stating the goal is more important than figuring out how to accomplish the objective.

 

 


Since consumers and businesses had stopped spending, what do you think would have happened if the Government had stopped as well?  There is a very good chance your solution would have ended in a depression.

Report Inappropriate Content
Highlighted
Recognized Social Butterfly

Re: Democratic socialism

345 Views
Message 15 of 280

@TxGrandpa2 wrote:

@sp362 wrote:



So, earlier you didn't know anything about Economics and now you do.  It is obvious you don't know what you are talking about, or what your previous talking points were.  The "shell game player" is you who doesn't understand what basic terms mean and how the Economy is driven.  I am amazed at the number of different times you have contradicted yourself in these posts.  I guess to some facts simply don't matter.



It is apparent that I've been posting with someone who mainly wants to show they know more about a topic than someone else.  And also about someone who in doing so wants to make it about another poster.

 

As far as terms, I could discuss word terms about a good many occupations, but as far as economics, my knowledge is my net worth. .  That's enough, even though I did study basic economics decades ago while in high school.  The bottom line is the economics I'm interested in is as pertains to me and if I can write a check for a new vehicle, or whatever, which I can. 



And, I guess I have been posting with someone who continues to insist that 2+2=5 and black is white.  From earlier posts I thought you were somewhat open minded, but I am starting to revise that opinion.

Report Inappropriate Content
Highlighted
Honored Social Butterfly

Re: Democratic socialism

351 Views
Message 16 of 280

@sp362 wrote:


And who were the builder's customers?  If they were unable to sell their goods, they would not be hiring him to do anything.  See Olderscout66's previous post for a basic Economics lesson.  You seem to be the one who is intent on insisting they are right despite your saying you had little knowledge of Economics and did not want to be involved in a discussion of Economics.


Are all customers on welfare - or even a majority? It does sound like an Economics lesson but not a free market Economics lesson - that other one.

Report Inappropriate Content
Highlighted
Honored Social Butterfly

Re: Democratic socialism

340 Views
Message 17 of 280

@Olderscout66 wrote:

@e458811y wrote:

Because our main business was building custom homes in the $100,000 to 2,000,000 dollar range in the north shore area of Chicago. And then in commercial projects such as Monona terrace in Madison Wi.& airports and music arenas with carpenters union local 839 & 250. With the last 15 years as a commercial electrician in the Orlando area. No there has been no welfare recipients writing my paychecks I can assure you. Why does this come as a surprise to you libs? Hate to be the bearer of bad news but not everyone works for a charity. Get over yourselves. Like I said, money doesn't trickle up worth a **bleep**.


That might make a bumper sticker appealing to GOPers, but the fact is for the last 30 years workers have increased their productivity - output per manhour - by 176% but their wages only went up 9%. Profits and executive pay on the other hand have skyrocketed - thanks to the redistribution of money from the ones who earned it UP to the ones who get to divide it.

Surely you are aware of the fact that the increase in productivity was not caused by increased effort by the worker but by the increased capability of the worker from the tools he was given by the company. 

 

As for your very narrow view of the economy, the money given to the welfare recepient is spent, creating demand that otherwise would not be there. That leads to economic expansion to meet the additional demand and that makes things better for just about everyone. You may not have had a welfare recepient signing your checks, but if it wasn't for Government stepping up to boost demand by treating citizens with compassion instead of Republican contempt, those checks would've been smaller because everyone would be worse off due to the lack of growth in the economy. Had the economy not expanded since, say 1965, how many $200,000-$1,000,000 homes would be on the market? Virtually none because at those prices in the Chicago area you'd be talking about office buildings, not homes.

If welfare programs are that valuable to the economy, why not put everyone on welfare? In other words, a system where the government owns all the money and distributes it as it thinks best.

 

There ya go - we are back to the topic......

 

 

Report Inappropriate Content
Highlighted
Honored Social Butterfly

Re: Democratic socialism

340 Views
Message 18 of 280

@Panjandrum wrote:

sp362:  Richva, Personally, I think the recovery was longer and less energetic than it would have been if there was a more aggressive stimulus from the start (which was proposed and reduced).

 

 

I agree 100%.


In a way, I agree too. My preference would have been for the government to have gotten out of the way and allowed the free economy to recover. 

 

On the other hand, if the answer was made to go the Keynesian route, I would have preferred to go full bore Keynesian in the short term.

 

Interestingly, with all the whining about tax cutting, it included tax cuts. 

 

The infrastructure was to be a major element and yet well after the fact Obama joked that the shovel ready jobs were't all that shovel ready. That seems a strange thing since the pols are still talking about more taxes so we can do more infrastructure work. It seems that stating the goal is more important than figuring out how to accomplish the objective.

 

 

Report Inappropriate Content
Highlighted
Honored Social Butterfly

Re: Democratic socialism

347 Views
Message 19 of 280

@sp362 wrote:



So, earlier you didn't know anything about Economics and now you do.  It is obvious you don't know what you are talking about, or what your previous talking points were.  The "shell game player" is you who doesn't understand what basic terms mean and how the Economy is driven.  I am amazed at the number of different times you have contradicted yourself in these posts.  I guess to some facts simply don't matter.



It is apparent that I've been posting with someone who mainly wants to show they know more about a topic than someone else.  And also about someone who in doing so wants to make it about another poster.

 

As far as terms, I could discuss word terms about a good many occupations, but as far as economics, my knowledge is my net worth. .  That's enough, even though I did study basic economics decades ago while in high school.  The bottom line is the economics I'm interested in is as pertains to me and if I can write a check for a new vehicle, or whatever, which I can. 


The mistake a lot of politicians make is forgetting
they've been appointed but thinking they've been anointed.
Report Inappropriate Content
Highlighted
Recognized Social Butterfly

Re: Democratic socialism

348 Views
Message 20 of 280

@TxGrandpa2 wrote:

@sp362 wrote:

Your unwillingness to acknowledge basic Economics is surprising.

 


I am aware of basic economics but apparently you are attempting to play a shell game.

 

There is a group here for Money, etc.  Perhaps you'd find someone to discuss with?  They might even  have more knowledge than yours? 


So, earlier you didn't know anything about Economics and now you do.  It is obvious you don't know what you are talking about, or what your previous talking points were.  The "shell game player" is you who doesn't understand what basic terms mean and how the Economy is driven.  I am amazed at the number of different times you have contradicted yourself in these posts.  I guess to some facts simply don't matter.

Report Inappropriate Content
cancel
Showing results for 
Show  only  | Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Users
Announcements

Solve Crosswords. Earn Rewards.

Solve your favorite crosswords on AARP Games to earn AARP Rewards points. Try your hand at the Daily Crossword, the Mini Crossword, and Let’s Crossword, the new member game you can play with family and friends. Play Now.

Top Authors