TPS

You guys are too biased to come up with a decent reason. Where's Magox when you need him? The conditions underlying this economy are not unlike the 1930s. The private sectore Debt/Gdp ratio was 240% in 1929, and it was 300% in 2008. The economy contracted from 1929-33 then, and it's been fairly stagnant for the past four years. As Richard Koo says, this is a balance sheet recession, and households may now be done repairing their balance sheets. Barring unforeseen chaos externally, the US economy should grow faster than it has the past couple years. Regarding BO and his promises, my take is he had to be re-elected so that he could force the bottom 90% to pay the major part of any deficit reduction. While he feigns support for the middle, the dems money comes from Wall Street, and they want SS and Medicare cut, not their taxes. That's why I don't vote for the major parties, it's all a show. Keep us all fighting each other for the crumbs.

I thought SM played the run very well in the few games he played last year, and he is showing that same ability this year. He sets the edge well, and does not get faked out of position as much as Kelsay does. With Kelsay coming back, I hope Merriman gets the starting nod.

While he has 12TDs and 12Ints, at home he has 8-2. They will be a dangerous team at home.

In the real world, since many of your neighbors are unemployed, one of them would be willing to peddle for $20/day, so that you'd have a positive net return.I agree with what you said about having to pay the labor, materials and energy to cover the costs, but where we disagree is that you don't think a firm can sell more output and recover their costs. That simply ignores how the majority of firms produce and price their output in the real world.

You're describing a process where a business would not make a profit in producing something--no one produces more if they can't cover their costs. Prices are set as a mark-up over average total costs. As long as you meet your sales target, you meet your profit target. If you sell less, your profits are lower; and if you sell more your profits are even higher. There does come a point when resources become scarce that costs will rise and passing along the costs could actually lower sales. But not when firms are operating at low capacity and there is high unemployment. They can hire workers at the same wage rate, if not lower.

Def on Byrd, but for Levitre, as long as you don't overpay. While he has been valuable and an iron man, guards are easier to come by.

I would say the same thing back to you. Money is simply a claim on real things. Sometimes we store those claims in longer term paper claims, but in the end you don't eat paper (I hope not at least). I agree with you when the economy is at full employment; then, any resource claim by government must be offset by a decrease in the claims by the private sector. This is why rationing and Patriotism were used to get people to buy less (use fewer claims) during the war, so resources could be marshalled toward war production. It is simply not the case when resources are unemployed. Resources, labor and physical capital, are what create value, and money is an instrument that allows "economic agents" (including governments) to make claims on resources. If too many claims are created relative to your ability to produce things, then you have a problem. The key is to regulate those claims consistent with the ability to produce real things. Historically, the problem has been that governments have abused their power of the printing press, and they have tended to create more claims on resources then what the real economy can produce. That's why most countries went to an independent central bank, to take the power of the printing press away from uncontrollable politicians. I (serioulsy) look forward to your response to this.

This is more total crap from you. How can you say that something is taking away from resources when people are out of work and factories are running at way under capacity? You throw out weird right wing theoretical stuff, which has nothing to do with reality Please, go through my example and tell me why it's wrong. How is it stealing from anyone when people are unemployed? You don't seem to realize that the ultimate end of production is labor. And when labor is idle, you can still produce things. Please, in concrete terms describe that "void on the other end." Production requires real resources. When there is a huge surplus of labor and capital, then you need some entity to increase demand. And,in fact, you can create demand by an entity called government, which needs no previous savings to fund its spending, it just needs to spend--especially when we are in a depression. You guys need to stop reading the crap you read.

This is insane. I thought you repubs knew how business works. If you think firms set price = MC, then that tells me you have no business experience. If sales increase at GM, are you going to tell me they won't produce more? What fantasy land do you live in? Ok, let me play your little theoretical game. First, your specious example of someone writing a check with no money in it is completely irrelevant. Only check kiters do that. Your example has nothing to do with what I'm saying. If there is significant excess capacity and unemployment, let's say the government spends $1 mil without borrowing it, totally out of thin air. Let's say they bought a plane from Lockheed, since you guys don't mind the government spending trillions on defense. Since the government has the power of the press, there's no cost to crediting Lockheed's bank account. Lockheed now has an extra million and they built another plane which keeps people working and keeps profits flowing. The effect of this, is that workers and Lockheed have increased their deposits at banks by $1 million. Now banks have $1 million in additional reserves. At this point, the government decides to sell a bond to "finance" its spending, and the bank buys the bond. What's the impact? Employment is maintained, profits are up, and government has financed its spending, after the fact. Think about this one.....

try checking out the real world sometime. Capacity utilization rates are low (78%) and unemployment is high. We have excess supply of resources right now. There is currently a demand problem.

How do you come up with that wacko conclusion?

Throwing out very marginal factions, the left is split between green/liberals and moderates; the right has moderates; wacko religious fanatics; and libertarians. That could be 5, but the moderate dems/reps aren't far apart, making 4 possible.

Theory is not based on the number. Theory can explain the impact on economic growth from various policies, and growth will impact employment. The choice of the particular measurement variable is not as important as whether the variable is changing like the theory predicts. I could just as easily focus on the broader measure of unemployment as long as the two measures tend to move together over time. In general, they do.

Another word(s) rarely associated with me...

I haven't been called a conservative in quite some time...Sorry Ducky, I should've said "we liberals..."

No disagreement with your point, but I am referring to the "official" rate used...

You maintain the current temporary cut in the payroll tax until the unemployment rate drops below 7%. You don't currently have to make it up. Payroll taxes being "assigned" to SS is almost a meaningless statement. Where did the hundreds in billions of dollars in the so-called surplus go? No one jumping on the typo yet...

Sounds like an argument for a single-layer system... I guess you are unaware of the fact that politicians from both sides of the aisle have used the surplus funds generated since the mid 1980s to fund general expenditures. In other words, they don't treat SS payroll taxes solely as a source to fund SS payments. And, as we'll soon find out, those benefits aren't guaranteed...

saw most of it Monday night--good stuff, even for liberals...

The act of saving money does not automatically presume that saved money will be used for "productive" investments. It will go to purchasing a financial asset driving up financial asset prices. Production of goods and investment in new facilities is driven by demand. You won't be in business long if you believe otherwise. I'd prefer lowering the payroll tax further.

That 47% is just crap. Anyone working pays payroll taxes. They also pay sales taxes, excise taxes, property taxes (many indirectly), etc. In addition, there are retirees including retired military who collect their SS and pensions--do they not deserve it? Did they not pay for it? Do you think they all voted for Obama? That line of Rushit is true class warfare. While there may be a group who relies on entitlements, it is probably less than 15%. The right can continue to delude themselves into believing that 50% of the population simply want handouts, if so they will continue to lose power. As for my argument, what's so hard to understand that you give tax cuts to working Americans who are struggling to get by? They spend all of their income. Aggregate demand is the central problem in the global economy today, especially for the US economy. You are guilty of ignoring the fact that once a "market for a product exists" then demand determines its continued production.

It's pretty simple: advanced economies are demand-driven. Since the bottom 80% spend all of their income, if you raise the top tax rate and simultaneously lower the rate for the bottom.80%, aggregate demand and growth will rise. An example: If you raise the top's tax by a $100, consumption will fall by about $75 and savings will fall by $25; offset that with a tax cut for the bottom by $100, and consumption will increase by $100. The net effect is a positive increase in demand by $25 with a balanced budget. In fact, you'd also generate more tax revenues because the increased demand will raise employment.

Saw a brief piece on Yahoo fantasy FB about him. Getting some props. I was sorry to see him get picked off the PS a few years back.

however you want to express it: women were concerned about how a Romney admin would handle social issues important to them.

That, but it was the social issues that won the day. The majority is fiscally conservative and socially liberal. Concern over Mitt's social policies overwhelmed concern over O's economic policies.