Proof! That liberal progressives want to destroy the country!!

[ProfJohn]

Obama's numbers are absolutely a decent framework for any deal,

You are missing the point!! There is no offer!! There is no frame work! There are just empty numbers.

Obama says he is willing to cut $1.5 trillion from the budget and when the Republicans ask home he plans to do that Obama doesn't answer.

Maybe Obama should offer to cut $5 trillion or $10 trillion. Might as well make a speech about his plan to balance the budget if only Republicans would agree to tax increases.

 

[matt0611]

Idiot. We all consume everything. The only time we dont consume is if we are dead. If everyone was dead what kind of economy would be left?

We consume energy, entertainment, food, housing, transportation, upkeep services, clothing the list goes on. This is what drives the economy. This is what drives the stock market speculation. This is what drives all of the financial instruments.

Things cannot come about for consumption without the ability to produce it.
Don't you think all the third world shit holes want food, nice houses, movies etc?

Just because they want to "consume" things doesn't mean an economy can produce it.

You think if we just had enough green pieces of paper in peoples hands things will be magically all better.
Views like yours are why our economy is so fucked. Nice job.

 

[ProfJohn]

He invests his money before he pays taxes you fucking idiot, he would be more apt to invest the million if he knew he would be taxed at 90% on it instead of 10%. Trickle down is an illusion.

When Bill Gates makes a million it doesn't just disappear into an invisible vault never to be see again. Even if he puts it in the bank it is at least put back into the economy and used to create new jobs.

You raise his taxes to say 50% and then that million becomes $500,000 and that is half as much money for investments in new businesses.

Raising tax rates and claiming that it will help the economy is idiocy. Even Obama admits to that.

The only thing higher tax rates did was to lower percentage of income that went to the rich. Instead of making 30% of all money maybe they only get 20% of all money. HOWEVER doing that also greatly reduces economic growth. Instead of 5% GDP we have 2% GDP. And decreasing the amount of wealth the rich get does NOTHING to help the poor and never has.

 

[JSt0rm]

When Bill Gates makes a million it doesn't just disappear into an invisible vault never to be see again. Even if he puts it in the bank it is at least put back into the economy and used to create new jobs.

You raise his taxes to say 50% and then that million becomes $500,000 and that is half as much money for investments in new businesses.

Raising tax rates and claiming that it will help the economy is idiocy. Even Obama admits to that.

The only thing higher tax rates did was to lower percentage of income that went to the rich. Instead of making 30% of all money maybe they only get 20% of all money. HOWEVER doing that also greatly reduces economic growth. Instead of 5% GDP we have 2% GDP. And decreasing the amount of wealth the rich get does NOTHING to help the poor and never has.

I already told you his expenses (including investments) are deducted before he pays taxes. High taxes increase money velocity. Just stop with your little lies. Nobody believes that shit anymore.

 

[Craig234]

Things cannot come about for consumption without the ability to produce it.
Don't you think all the third world shit holes want food, nice houses, movies etc?

Just because they want to "consume" things doesn't mean an economy can produce it.

You think if we just had enough green pieces of paper in peoples hands things will be magically all better.
Views like yours are why our economy is so fucked. Nice job.

No, actually, what you find in these poor societies is a great concentration of wealth typically, preventing broader prosperity and opportunity.

The few rich like to have all of the small pie, leaving the masses in terrible poverty, unable to pay for those nice things you list.

If something forced wealth to be more distributed, then those poorer people would start to be able to buy more things, creating new businesses - and growing the pie and actually better for even the rich in the longer run. But the rich tend to not care too much about that, looking for more of society's wealth right away and not caring to 'share' much of it.

Your attack is ironic, because it's actually *your* views harming the economy.

 

[JSt0rm]

Things cannot come about for consumption without the ability to produce it.
Don't you think all the third world shit holes want food, nice houses, movies etc?

Just because they want to "consume" things doesn't mean an economy can produce it.

You think if we just had enough green pieces of paper in peoples hands things will be magically all better.
Views like yours are why our economy is so fucked. Nice job.

You should never own a business because you would fail. people don't just make something without a demand for consumption. Those people in the 3rd world who want to consume cant because of scarcity of resources again because of consumption. Dont you work in energy?

 

[matt0611]

No, actually, what you find in these poor societies is a great concentration of wealth typically, preventing broader prosperity and opportunity.

The few rich like to have all of the small pie, leaving the masses in terrible poverty, unable to pay for those nice things you list.

If something forced wealth to be more distributed, then those poorer people would start to be able to buy more things, creating new businesses - and growing the pie and actually better for even the rich in the longer run. But the rich tend to not care too much about that, looking for more of society's wealth right away and not caring to 'share' much of it.

Your attack is ironic, because it's actually *your* views harming the economy.

If the rich peoples wealth were spread equally out to the rest of the people in these countries it would make hardly a difference in their wealth.

Your economic views are a fucking joke.

 

[Craig234]

When Bill Gates makes a million it doesn't just disappear into an invisible vault never to be see again. Even if he puts it in the bank it is at least put back into the economy and used to create new jobs.

You raise his taxes to say 50% and then that million becomes $500,000 and that is half as much money for investments in new businesses.

Raising tax rates and claiming that it will help the economy is idiocy. Even Obama admits to that.

The only thing higher tax rates did was to lower percentage of income that went to the rich. Instead of making 30% of all money maybe they only get 20% of all money. HOWEVER doing that also greatly reduces economic growth. Instead of 5% GDP we have 2% GDP. And decreasing the amount of wealth the rich get does NOTHING to help the poor and never has.

PJ, you need to learn to stop making up facts that are false.

The growth of our economy has done *just fine* with higher tax rates.

People like you - the Republican leadership - all predicted the crash of the American economy if Clinton's tax increase on the rich passed - which is why 0 or 1 Republicans voted for it IIRC. It was a test whose economics are right, and the Republicans were proven to be utter idiots at best, and liars for the rich at worst.

Wealth put to the top *does* largely 'just disappear' in terms of doing good for society - and it's clearly far less good for society than going into the hands of consumers.

Give a billionare that extra $100 million, and it's quite likely to simply go to acquire another asset that produces wealth, driving up the price of the asset without actually producing anything more for the economy. Now the factory is worth $2 billion instead of $1.8 billion. It's the same factory, with the same economic activity, but just that much further out of reach of a less wealth investor, as fewer people own everything.

He can put it there, or in overseas investments, or in savings, or overseas savings, none of which do that much for the economy. The myth that having it in the bank makes it terribly productive for society because they're out lending it to people who make new factories is false. How are those new factories coming along? Do you have any clue about how the financial industry has turned into a highly leveraged gambling business with those funds, putting the economy at risk - and blackmailing the taxpayers to bail them out?

The concentration of wealth, contrary to your false myths, is *bad* for the economy and *bad* for society. You have to make up false facts to try to hide the harm.

 

[fskimospy]

You are missing the point!! There is no offer!! There is no frame work! There are just empty numbers.

Obama says he is willing to cut $1.5 trillion from the budget and when the Republicans ask home he plans to do that Obama doesn't answer.

Maybe Obama should offer to cut $5 trillion or $10 trillion. Might as well make a speech about his plan to balance the budget if only Republicans would agree to tax increases.

You are not understanding how negotiations work.

You set out broad frameworks, then you hammer out the details. What exactly do you think they have been doing in all these meetings, just having one person say '1.5 trillion', then having the other person say '3 trillion'.???? They HAVE been working out specifics, just not in public for all the reasons I already said.

You need to look past Eric Cantor's immaturity and understand how a real deal is done.

 

[matt0611]

You should never own a business because you would fail. people don't just make something without a demand for consumption. Those people in the 3rd world who want to consume cant because of scarcity of resources again because of consumption. Dont you work in energy?

Right, they don't make stuff if no one will wants it for the price they are selling it. Our economy has severe misallocation of capital resources that is no longer sustainable now that the boom period of the bubble is over.

Printing more money will not solve this. Getting the wealthy peoples little green pieces of paper will not solve this.

I manage my own business very well thanks.

 

[Craig234]

If the rich peoples wealth were spread equally out to the rest of the people...

Stop reading right there. You're lying about what I said. I never said *equally*, which is an entirely different policy and one that would do bad things. Stop wasting my time with lies.

And I repeat since you ignored it the first time:

If you're going to reply to me, say whether you read the link I posted for you.

 

[fskimospy]

You may not like their position, but for Repubs who ran, and got elected, on a platform of not increasing the debt they ARE compromising by agreeing to increasing debt.

We've got Repubs who ran on a balanced budget amendment etc.

Fern

No they aren't. The Republican leadership is already on the record as saying that they understand that raising the debt ceiling is a requirement, not an option. There is no concession there whatsoever, as it is a position they already hold.

If you are right however, that idea is vastly more frightening than simple political bullshittery. Since having to raise the debt ceiling was a certainty even before the 2010 election, that means these people were basically running on a platform of causing a worldwide financial panic.

Think of how insane that is.

 

[Craig234]

No they aren't. The Republican leadership is already on the record as saying that they understand that raising the debt ceiling is a requirement, not an option. There is no concession there whatsoever, as it is a position they already hold.

If you are right however, that idea is vastly more frightening than simple political bullshittery. Since having to raise the debt ceiling was a certainty even before the 2010 election, that means these people were basically running on a platform of causing a worldwide financial panic.

Think of how insane that is.

The Republican leadership is all over the map. They have also said they won't consider a ceiling increase without various ransoms.

There are also Republican criminals - members - I've seen estimates about 75 - who simply oppose raising the ceiling, wanting to 'screw up the big government'.

Some people cite these criminals taking the 'Norquist pledge' like it's a valid argument to justify a bad position. How about Democrats pledge not to cut a cent of spending, and then say 'sorry, can't do it'?

 

[matt0611]

Stop reading right there. You're lying about what I said. I never said *equally*, which is an entirely different policy and one that would do bad things. Stop wasting my time with lies.

And I repeat since you ignored it the first time:

If you're going to reply to me, say whether you read the link I posted for you.

The "equally" part was added by me just to convey scale, I know you didn't say it, distribute it anyway you like. Kill all of their rich and give all of their money and possessions anyway you like to the rest. It won't make a dent.

If your going to reply to me, don't spout any of your garbage views on the economy.

And certainly don't link to ANYTHING Paul Krugman has to say.
Thanks.

 

[Bowfinger]

Things cannot come about for consumption without the ability to produce it.
Don't you think all the third world shit holes want food, nice houses, movies etc?

Just because they want to "consume" things doesn't mean an economy can produce it.

You think if we just had enough green pieces of paper in peoples hands things will be magically all better.
Views like yours are why our economy is so fucked. Nice job.

You have that so backwards. The issue in "third world shit holes" is NOT that people don't want things. It's that they lack the means to pay for them. Demand isn't just want; it's both the desire and the means.

Supply follows demand. Your comment, "People cannot consume what is not produced" is misguided. Think about it for a moment. If the limiting factor in our economy today is supply, you should be able to point to widespread shortages. That would be the result of demand exceeding supply (along with rapidly rising prices until there was equilibrium). That's not the case. Instead you see lots of sale pricing and suppliers reducing production (and eliminating jobs) because demand is weak. Consumers simply aren't spending as much. Putting more green in the hands of consumers is exactly what's needed.

 

[ProfJohn]

If something forced wealth to be more distributed, then those poorer people would start to be able to buy more things, creating new businesses - and growing the pie and actually better for even the rich in the longer run.

Every time that has been tried the end result has been less wealth for everyone.

Europe has a far more "forced" distribution of wealth than the US and they also have a lower income level too.

The US has the second highest median household income in the world.
If you start to compare us to the other large world economies we demolish them when it comes to median income.

We have THE most successful economy in the world and it would be stupid to destroy it by enacting failed liberal policies in the name of 'fairness.'

 

[Bowfinger]

Every time that has been tried the end result has been less wealth for everyone.

Europe has a far more "forced" distribution of wealth than the US and they also have a lower income level too.

The US has the second highest median household income in the world.
If you start to compare us to the other large world economies we demolish them when it comes to median income.

We have THE most successful economy in the world and it would be stupid to destroy it by enacting failed liberal policies in the name of 'fairness.'

And our incredibly successful economy was built during an era where wealth was far more evenly distributed. It is only the last 30 years or so when that trend changed, with the balance shifting back towards greater concentration of wealth in the hands of an elite few. That's a fact today's greedy like to gloss over while they whine about "punitive" taxes.

 

[matt0611]

You have that so backwards. The issue in "third world shit holes" is NOT that people don't want things. It's that they lack the means to pay for them. Demand isn't just want; it's both the desire and the means.

Supply follows demand. Your comment, "People cannot consume what is not produced" is misguided. Think about it for a moment. If the limiting factor in our economy today is supply, you should be able to point to widespread shortages. That would be the result of demand exceeding supply (along with rapidly rising prices until there was equilibrium). That's not the case. Instead you see lots of sale pricing and suppliers reducing production (and eliminating jobs) because demand is weak. Consumers simply aren't spending as much. Putting more green in the hands of consumers is exactly what's needed.

Right, they lack the demand to pay for them with their OWN production.

You can print all the money you want (see Zimbabwe), it doesn't allow the people to magically have wealth.

An economy grows because of the amount and/or quality of things it can produce over a given length of time rises.

The US economy isn't better than the economy of Bangledesh simply because people in the US have "more money" so that we can consume more, its because our economy is capable of producing so much more and better things which allows people to be able to afford to buy so much.

You are the one that has it backwards.

 

[Bowfinger]

Right, they lack the demand to pay for them with their OWN production.

You can print all the money you want (see Zimbabwe), it doesn't allow the people to magically have wealth.

An economy grows because of the amount and/or quality of things it can produce over a given length of time rises.

The US economy isn't better than the economy of Bangledesh simply because people in the US have "more money" so that we can consume more, its because our economy is capable of producing so much more and better things which allows people to be able to afford to buy so much.

You are the one that has it backwards.

Ah, that explains the widespread shortages of consumer goods we see here today.

Oh wait ...

 

[fskimospy]

Every time that has been tried the end result has been less wealth for everyone.

Europe has a far more "forced" distribution of wealth than the US and they also have a lower income level too.

The US has the second highest median household income in the world.
If you start to compare us to the other large world economies we demolish them when it comes to median income.

We have THE most successful economy in the world and it would be stupid to destroy it by enacting failed liberal policies in the name of 'fairness.'

The reason you should shoot for more equitable income distribution is that extreme income disparities inhibit economic growth. Your ideas for who has a lower income level is pretty simplistic, as there are quite a few measures (PPP GDP per capita, etc) where far more socialized countries than the US rank higher.

You also of course conveniently forgot to mention that even if we accepted your standard, the country that ranks higher than the US in median income is a European country with socialized health care, a big welfare safety net, etc.. etc. (Luxembourg)

 

[Craig234]

The "equally" part was added by me just to convey scale, I know you didn't say it, distribute it anyway you like. Kill all of their rich and give all of their money and possessions anyway you like to the rest. It won't make a dent.

If your going to reply to me, don't spout any of your garbage views on the economy.

And certainly don't link to ANYTHING Paul Krugman has to say.
Thanks.

I'll take that as a 'no, you did not read the information you were given'.

Given your determination to remain ignorant and jerky attitude, I'll stop wasting time replying to you (and ask you not to read or reply to me), and if I do bother to read one of your posts, will talk to others about it, not to you, I expect. You are just clueless in the point you made above, which explains the idiocy you post over and over.

For you there's no such thing as too low of taxation on the rich. Not sure if you stop at zero, or go lower.

 

[ProfJohn]

And our incredibly successful economy was built during an era where wealth was far more evenly distributed. It is only the last 30 years or so when that trend changed, with the balance shifting back towards greater concentration of wealth in the hands of an elite few. That's a fact today's greedy like to gloss over while they whine about "punitive" taxes.

It was also built during an era when income redistribution was FAR smaller than it was today.

And don't forget the linger effects of WW 2 where we were the only major country to escape unharmed which gave us a huge advantage in the 50s.

And it occurred before the creation of the global economy when our workers didn't have to compete with cheap labor and thus our labor costs were allowed to escalate.

And don't forget that even during this time of great growth the life style and standard of living for the average American was far lower than it is today. They lived in smaller houses, they had less leisure time, they took fewer vacations and traveled less, they had less worldly possessions etc etc.

 

[ProfJohn]

Given your determination to remain ignorant and jerky attitude, I'll stop wasting time replying to you (and ask you not to read or reply to me),

I am amazed that Craig has anyone left to talk to at all.

He should move to DailyKos or Moveon.org where everyone will agree with him and it's one big circle jerk.

 

[matt0611]

Ah, that explains the widespread shortages of consumer goods we see here today.

Oh wait ...

Where did I say we had general shortages of consumer goods?
There may be an over or under supply of some goods in relation to others. This is caused by the misallocation of resources.
This is what needs to be fixed in order for our economy to get healthy again.

Simply giving people money to go out and spend won't fix it.
Have you been asleep the past decade? We've had nothing but consumer spending.
How'd that work out for us?

People have this notion that if we can just get people enough money to "clear the shelves" of stores so that businesses will hire people so those people will make more money to spend on other things. Its nothing but just a naive, surface level view of how an economy works. Again, simply getting people to spend money will not fix what is wrong with this economy.

 

[sao123]

Right, they don't make stuff if no one will wants it for the price they are selling it. Our economy has severe misallocation of capital resources that is no longer sustainable now that the boom period of the bubble is over.

Printing more money will not solve this. Getting the wealthy peoples little green pieces of paper will not solve this.

I manage my own business very well thanks.

only you would suggest printing new money.. as i never did.
No... someone will ultimately have to pay the brunt of this, and there is only one group of people who can... the business owners.

This is a radical problem requiring a radical new approach...

i suggest we try Trickle-Up economics. without going into the negative, suppose every company cut salaries above an arbitrary number, say 250K and hired as many people as possible people at livable salaries say 30k to 50K... simply employing people for the sake of employing people. Lets call this profit minimalizing without going negative...

Are you seriously arguing that this would not ease the burden on government services and create new demand, thus undoing the last decade of economic downsizing?

Noone would ever propose such a proposterous thing because... oh no... think of the shareholders. The shareholders are the real agenda responsible for our current problems: our inefficiencies made our economy strong, removing them weakened it.
Want proof? look at germany... strongest economy in europe. Germany protects workers (aka consumers) at all cost.