Jump to content

TPS

Community Member
  • Posts

    7,747
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by TPS

  1. 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.
  2. 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.....
  3. 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.
  4. How do you come up with that wacko conclusion?
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. Another word(s) rarely associated with me...
  8. I haven't been called a conservative in quite some time...Sorry Ducky, I should've said "we liberals..."
  9. No disagreement with your point, but I am referring to the "official" rate used...
  10. 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...
  11. 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...
  12. saw most of it Monday night--good stuff, even for liberals...
  13. 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.
  14. 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.
  15. 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.
  16. 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.
  17. however you want to express it: women were concerned about how a Romney admin would handle social issues important to them.
  18. 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.
  19. There's no "i" in hubris....errr, wait, yes there is ....
  20. Hmmm...I assumed this was a post to bait OC into several tome-like reponses....
  21. I've been making this argument here for years....Supply-side is bunk.Tax cuts to increase savings doesn't translate to increased real investment (and growth), because investment is driven by demand and competition. More often then not, those policies have caused asset bubbles.
  22. So, many people aren't voting for their guy so much as they are voting for the lesser of two evils. They may not like obama/Romney, but they hate Romney/obama, so they vote for Obama/Romney.
  23. Grew up in SoCal, and my teams were the Angels, Lakers and Rams. Showing my age, my first championship experience was the Jerry West/Wilt Chamberlin Lakers in the early 1970s. I remember listening to it on the raido and running outside to let out a big holler. All of the lakers championships after that one pale in comparison. I moved to Buffalo in 1990, and it was easy to adopt the Bills since the Rams moved to StL and it was the first championship season for the Bills. I got pretty excited about the Angels first championship in 2002 too. If the Bills win one in my lifetime, I think it will eclipse that first Lakers' one.
  24. Simple solution, he left the d off "win"...hmmm...something erie about that...
  25. I think it has added to his regression this year. I liken it to trying to change your golf mechanics--you play really crappy for awhile until things start to click. Not saying it'll work, rather the change could certainly make him regress.
×
×
  • Create New...