Economic Growth Rate Downgraded to Anemic 1.6 Percent in Second Quarter

[dmcowen674]

Most recoveries move in ONE direction, upwards.

This one has started to move backwards. Not a good sign in any way shape or form.

and you would know, it's the only direction you and your boy Bush put this country in.

 

[nick1985]

and you would know, it's the only direction you and your boy Bush put this country in.

Have you ever had a nightmare about George Bush? How many?

 

[ProfJohn]

Let's not forget that these multiplier rates are based on a $50 billion stimulus which is what he was talking about when he wrote the article. Something that might work on that scale may not work on a larger scale or due to a larger problem.

Also, when he wrote that story the economy was entering what we thought would be a normal recession or slow down. No one had any idea that we were about to drive off a cliff.


Finally, the Obama stimulus was $700 billion. That amounts to $2,333 in food stamps per PERSON in this country.

 

[ProfJohn]

and you would know, it's the only direction you and your boy Bush put this country in.

Dave, would you please show us on this doll where he touched you...

 

[Hacp]

I guess real economists and other people who know about this would disagree with you. Unsurprising.

Looking at those numbers, food stamps look pretty good, don't they? But don't let these facts get in the way of your preconceived beliefs.

Are these the same economists that made the infamous recession chart?

 

[ProfJohn]

Well, for one thing, nonprofjohn, you have yet to explain to me how food stamps is an example of 'trickle down economics'. That statement makes you look really really dumb.

I never said that food stamps were trickle down economics.

What I was implying is that trickle down economics and the multiplier effect both work on the same exact principle. i.e. you put more money into the economy and it will cause the economy to grow.

Give a business owner an extra $1 and he will invest it into his business and make it grow.

Give a poor person a $1 and they will spend it and cause the economy to grow.

 

[Hacp]

Let's not forget that these multiplier rates are based on a $50 billion stimulus which is what he was talking about when he wrote the article. Something that might work on that scale may not work on a larger scale or due to a larger problem.

Also, when he wrote that story the economy was entering what we thought would be a normal recession or slow down. No one had any idea that we were about to drive off a cliff.


Finally, the Obama stimulus was $700 billion. That amounts to $2,333 in food stamps per PERSON in this country.

Fuck food stamps. In the old days, did people rely on food stamps to survive? NO! They either farmed for their food, or bought their food from money they earned. Jump 100 years into the future and we have 1/8th of all Americans relying on food stamps. They get quite the buck too. In the past, if you were poor, you ate vegetables and cat/dog food. Now, if you're poor, you get food stamps and can enjoy steak.

 

[Phokus]

I never said that food stamps were trickle down economics.

What I was implying is that trickle down economics and the multiplier effect both work on the same exact principle. i.e. you put more money into the economy and it will cause the economy to grow.

Give a business owner an extra $1 and he will invest it into his business and make it grow.

Give a poor person a $1 and they will spend it and cause the economy to grow.

Wow, you really are that daft. Let me quote you what you quoted originally when you called it 'trickle down' economics:

Tracking that single dollar spent through the economic chain shows what economists call the ripple effect, Zandi said. For example, that dollar spent at the grocery store in turn helps to pay the salaries of the grocery clerks, pays the truckers who haul the food and produce cross-country, and finally goes to the farmer who grows the crops.

Notice how you said 'business owner' (which does not necessarily encompass the 'rich'). TRICKLE DOWN economics references giving more money to the rich (via tax cuts). NOT ALL BUSINESS OWNERS ARE RICH.

http://money.howstuffworks.com/trickle-down-economics.htm

In a nu*tshell, trickle-down theory is based on the premise that within an economy, giving tax breaks to the top earners makes them more likely to earn more. Top earners invest that extra money in productive economic activities or spend more of their time at the high-paying trade they do best (whether that be creating inventions or performing heart surgeries). Either way, these activities will be productive, reinvigorate economic growth and, in the end, generate more tax revenue from these earners and the people they've helped. According to the theory, this boost in growth will ultimately help those in lower income brackets as well. Although trickle-down economics is often associated with the policies of Ronald Reagan in the 1980s, the theory dates back to the 1920s. The name also has roots in the '20s, when humorist Will Rogers coined the term, saying, "The money was all appropriated for the top in the hopes it would trickle down to the needy" [source: Shafritz].

A single dollar has a higher marginal utility to a poor person than it does to the rich. You give a poor person an additional dollar of food stamps, that person will, by nature, be FORCED to spend that on food. That dollar will go to the store clerk, the trucker and the farmer. They, in turn, will spend that money earned on jobs around them as well.

Giving the rich an extra dollar doesn't guarantee squat. The rich will most likely not spend that money because they have a higher marginal propensity to save. If they invest in stocks? That won't do shit because the companies they own via stocks are under heavy pressure to cut costs and they do that by outsourcing/offshoring. You can argue that creates jobs in the countries they outsource to, but as you can see, there are not enough jobs created at home to offset the job losses as a result, so the rich end up destroying more jobs at home by indirectly investing abroad.

To summarize:

1 extra dollar to the poor > 1 extra dollar to the rich in terms of marginal utility

1 extra dollar spent by the poor guarantees economic stimulus at home

1 extra dollar invested by the rich doesn't guarantee shit.

 

[Moonbeam]

Consumer spending is up.

 

[BoberFett]

and you would know, it's the only direction you and your boy Bush put this country in.

You mean YOU and your boy Bush, right? You did vote for Bush, Dave. Didn't you?

 

[Hacp]

Wow, you really are that daft. Let me quote you what you quoted originally when you called it 'trickle down' economics:



Notice how you said 'business owner' (which does not necessarily encompass the 'rich'). TRICKLE DOWN economics references giving more money to the rich (via tax cuts). NOT ALL BUSINESS OWNERS ARE RICH.

http://money.howstuffworks.com/trickle-down-economics.htm



A single dollar has a higher marginal utility to a poor person than it does to the rich. You give a poor person an additional dollar of food stamps, that person will, by nature, be FORCED to spend that on food. That dollar will go to the store clerk, the trucker and the farmer. They, in turn, will spend that money earned on jobs around them as well.

Giving the rich an extra dollar doesn't guarantee squat. The rich will most likely not spend that money because they have a higher marginal propensity to save. If they invest in stocks? That won't do shit because the companies they own via stocks are under heavy pressure to cut costs and they do that by outsourcing/offshoring. You can argue that creates jobs in the countries they outsource to, but as you can see, there are not enough jobs created at home to offset the job losses as a result, so the rich end up destroying more jobs at home by indirectly investing abroad.

To summarize:

1 extra dollar to the poor > 1 extra dollar to the rich in terms of marginal utility

1 extra dollar spent by the poor guarantees economic stimulus at home

1 extra dollar invested by the rich doesn't guarantee shit.

So you're saying steal from the rich to give to the poor? If the poor hasn't worked for his money, he shouldn't be getting ANY money. Period.

 

[ayabe]

Fuck food stamps. In the old days, did people rely on food stamps to survive? NO! They either farmed for their food, or bought their food from money they earned. Jump 100 years into the future and we have 1/8th of all Americans relying on food stamps. They get quite the buck too. In the past, if you were poor, you ate vegetables and cat/dog food. Now, if you're poor, you get food stamps and can enjoy steak.

It's called progress. People live longer, can survive many previously fatal illness, and multi-generational families don't often live together. You know if you had to revert back to the station in society you would have occupied 100 years ago you'd be some poor dumb fuck working for slave wages, with no education, and would die young.

 

[LegendKiller]

So you're saying steal from the rich to give to the poor? If the poor hasn't worked for his money, he shouldn't be getting ANY money. Period.

What happens when the economy starts to create masses of unemployed, impoverished, and destitute people while the "rich" horde their money?

 

[Phokus]

So you're saying steal from the rich to give to the poor? If the poor hasn't worked for his money, he shouldn't be getting ANY money. Period.

Hey HACP, maybe you should stop fucking stealing from you roommate before you start talking about stealing from the rich, you worthless leach.

 

[LegendKiller]

What happens when the economy starts to create masses of unemployed, impoverished, and destitute people while the "rich" horde their money?

You know, I ask this question time and again, yet nobody ever answers it. Instead they prefer to be blowhard hyperbolic piles of shit and avoid the inevitable outcome of wealth hording.

Revolution.

It's not surprising that the inept piles of shit on this forum can't see past their own greed.

 

[spidey07]

You know, I ask this question time and again, yet nobody ever answers it. Instead they prefer to be blowhard hyperbolic piles of shit and avoid the inevitable outcome of wealth hording.

Revolution.

It's not surprising that the inept piles of shit on this forum can't see past their own greed.

That's easy. Business owners WANT to invest in capital and jobs, but the current blather/laws from congress and the white house has them scared shitless. That is the only reason they would be hoarding their money, otherwise they want their money to make more for them. They're trying to weather the Obama storm, smart people know that because of this administration it's time to hold onto your wallets.

Change that tune by bills and direction and incent business and watch this economy take off.

 

[LegendKiller]

That's easy. Business owners WANT to invest in capital and jobs, but the current blather/laws from congress and the white house has them scared shitless. That is the only reason they would be hoarding their money, otherwise they want their money to make more for them. They're trying to weather the Obama storm, smart people know that because of this administration it's time to hold onto your wallets.

Change that tune by bills and direction and incent business and watch this economy take off.

They will hire when they feel like demand has taken hold. Demand won't take hold until further deleveraging takes place, it's that simple. Too many balance sheets are still too highly levered. The WH policies have nothing to do with that.

Incentivization of businesses has nothing to do with lower taxes. We had high taxes throughout the 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s, and early 90s, yet, somehow, despite that, our economy did pretty damn well.

Most western european countries have high taxes, most weathered this storm well, notably Germany. how do you explain that with their high taxes? I thought businesses and individuals weren't incentivized with high taxes?

Reaganomics has failed. Even the founder of them has admitted that. Why can't you?

 

[zephyrprime]

To summarize:

1 extra dollar to the poor > 1 extra dollar to the rich in terms of marginal utility

1 extra dollar spent by the poor guarantees economic stimulus at home

1 extra dollar invested by the rich doesn't guarantee shit.

I have to say that it depends on the situation. In a country like india, an extra dollar to the rich is probably more useful than an extra dollar to the poor. Less developed countries have less money in the hands of the rich. They have less money available for investment. In richer countries, this is not so.

Generally speaking, I do not believe that it can be said that the marginal utility of money is higher going to the rich versus the poor. It depends on context and how much money is going to each camp. To put it succinctly, there is some sort of optimal balance point between both extremes. Putting too much money into on camp or the other eventually undermines that camp and also the other camp as well.

It's also a matter a history. In the 1920's and now in the US, the rich have a high proportion of the countries wealth. So during these time periods, the marginal value of additional money going to the rich is low. Also, there are even times when the marginal value of additional money going to the rich is NEGATIVE. Excess money going to the rich during those periods is used for destructive speculation because all useful investment is already saturated.

 

[zephyrprime]

That's easy. Business owners WANT to invest in capital and jobs, but the current blather/laws from congress and the white house has them scared shitless. That is the only reason they would be hoarding their money, otherwise they want their money to make more for them. They're trying to weather the Obama storm, smart people know that because of this administration it's time to hold onto your wallets.

Change that tune by bills and direction and incent business and watch this economy take off.

That's BS. Look at what's happening in the real market right now. Businesses are spending money acquiring each other. Doing this is not an investment in additional capital (it just merges two formerly separate entities) and it is a negative investment in jobs since mergers are typically attended by layoffs of redundancies. So companies are very willing and not scared to spend money now but not in capital investments or labor expansion.