• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Employers add no net jobs in Aug.; rate unchanged

Status
Not open for further replies.
obvious Child said:
How does dramatically reducing aggregate demand actually grow an economy?
Click to expand...

It's because aggregate demand is a horrible analysis. Government doesn't know what people should be spending on, and it doesn't know the correct ratio of investment to consumption. If there is "not enough demand," then the problem is that the things that people want are not being made and the things that people don't want are. Allow production to adjust to consumer demand and then you'll get a robust recovery.

At least Boehner is honest in admitting cuts will increase unemployment. You have this crazy idea that killing demand will increase economic activity. And when challenged on this, you are completely unable to support your belief.
Click to expand...

Short term versus long term.

Tell me, is Greece expanding leaps and bounds from its dramatic cuts?
Click to expand...

Greece still has a debt crisis. They have not cut enough.
 
phattonez said:
It's because aggregate demand is a horrible analysis. Government doesn't know what people should be spending on, and it doesn't know the correct ratio of investment to consumption. If there is "not enough demand," then the problem is that the things that people want are not being made and the things that people don't want are. Allow production to adjust to consumer demand and then you'll get a robust recovery.
Click to expand...

That doesn't actually address my point. You seriously gloss over multipliers as if they do not exist. Sure government spends money in bad ways, but that money gets pushed down to consumers who then spend the money themselves. Dramatic cuts at the initial level will basically strip the consumers of their spending and cause massive waves of indirect cuts. While allowing production to adjust to demand over the long term will produce a recovery, that will result in likely a decade if not longer recovery in the context of deleveraging.

Short term versus long term.
Click to expand...

True, over the long term assuming there is private sector demand to pick up the pieces over time. But Conservative has this asinine notion that swift cuts now will produce swift growth now. That is 100% certified crazy.

Greece still has a debt crisis. They have not cut enough.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily. Greece still has a debt crisis for a number of reasons. They've cut enough. The bigger question is exports. The irony of Greece is that their debt issue largely stems from the government backing private loans to increase the size of Greece businesses to do exactly that. In the drive to build up Greek Commerce, they dug their own graves. It's a pity that government services are being axed to pay for the failure of Greece business.
 
obvious Child said:
That doesn't actually address my point. You seriously gloss over multipliers as if they do not exist. Sure government spends money in bad ways, but that money gets pushed down to consumers who then spend the money themselves. Dramatic cuts at the initial level will basically strip the consumers of their spending and cause massive waves of indirect cuts. While allowing production to adjust to demand over the long term will produce a recovery, that will result in likely a decade if not longer recovery in the context of deleveraging.
Click to expand...

But this keeps capital in industries where it should not be kept. Like in construction. We can't ignore a distorted structure of production. Capital needs to be used where it is most efficient, and government expenditures necessarily make it less efficient.

True, over the long term assuming there is private sector demand to pick up the pieces over time. But Conservative has this asinine notion that swift cuts now will produce swift growth now. That is 100% certified crazy.
Click to expand...

Agreed. I know of no economist clamoring for tax cuts who does not admit short term pain.

Not necessarily. Greece still has a debt crisis for a number of reasons. They've cut enough. The bigger question is exports. The irony of Greece is that their debt issue largely stems from the government backing private loans to increase the size of Greece businesses to do exactly that. In the drive to build up Greek Commerce, they dug their own graves. It's a pity that government services are being axed to pay for the failure of Greece business.
Click to expand...

Have they cut enough? Because the debt is still there, isn't it? And you're right that backing private loans is a bad idea.
 
phattonez said:
But this keeps capital in industries where it should not be kept. Like in construction. We can't ignore a distorted structure of production. Capital needs to be used where it is most efficient, and government expenditures necessarily make it less efficient.



Agreed. I know of no economist clamoring for tax cuts who does not admit short term pain.



Have they cut enough? Because the debt is still there, isn't it? And you're right that backing private loans is a bad idea.
Click to expand...


Greece has cut a large amount, the problem being with the economic decline associated with those cuts has been bigger then the cut in spending. Greek government spending accounted for a large amount of Greek economic activity, so the cuts from the government will have negatively effected the Greek GDP
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
Greece has cut a large amount, the problem being with the economic decline associated with those cuts has been bigger then the cut in spending. Greek government spending accounted for a large amount of Greek economic activity, so the cuts from the government will have negatively effected the Greek GDP
Click to expand...

Which with time will be a boon for the economy, but the debt is still not gone.
 
phattonez said:
But this keeps capital in industries where it should not be kept. Like in construction. We can't ignore a distorted structure of production. Capital needs to be used where it is most efficient, and government expenditures necessarily make it less efficient.
Click to expand...

And I wanted to expand on this. This new spending will either be paid for with new taxes, loans, or inflation.

New taxes - money will instead be used on things that consumers did not demand, and less money will be available for investment than was previously available, hindering expansion.

Loans - available supply of capital decreases.

Inflation - those who receive the new money last have essentially been stolen from, and the things that they would have spent money on are instead spent on the things that others wanted. Malinvestment is introduced, and the supply of capital decreases.
 
phattonez said:
Which with time will be a boon for the economy, but the debt is still not gone.
Click to expand...

Of course the debt ist still their and will be untill Greece defaults or is able to pay it down. The most likely situation is default
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
Of course the debt ist still their and will be untill Greece defaults or is able to pay it down. The most likely situation is default
Click to expand...

It would be the fastest way for the reality of the situation to be realized.
 
Michael H said:
Well I'm in good company ... Paul Krugman is just as confused as me.



Audit of the Federal Reserve Reveals $16 Trillion in Secret Bailouts « Parker County Blog


GAO Audit: Fed’s $16 Trillion in Aid | The Big Picture



Sibel Edmonds' Boiling Frogs Post | Home of the Irate Minority

On pages 131-133 of their report, the GAO provided two tables listing the largest borrowing institutions under the emergency programs. They are ranked in the first table by the total borrowed amount irrespective of maturity length, and in the second table adjusting for the term of the borrowing. Some loans were for relatively brief intervals, even overnight, and others for longer time frames. Both perspectives are valuable, but the amounts adjusted for borrowing terms tend to do a better job of capturing a comparable read on the simple magnitude of lending. Total borrowing on this basis totaled $1.1 trillion, according to the GAO’s “Table 9,” while two-thirds of the 15 largest institutions listed were from outside the United States.


The Fed Audit - Newsroom: U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders (Vermont)



Who got what from Fed bailout | Loren Steffy | a Chron.com blog



Federal Reserve Emergency Loans: Liquidity for Banks - Bloomberg
The Fed’s Secret Liquidity Lifelines
Click to expand...
Paul Krugman and Bernie Sanders...... ;)
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
Of course the debt ist still their and will be untill Greece defaults or is able to pay it down. The most likely situation is default
Click to expand...
What, they're not going to stop the default?
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
Umm, you can legally kill someone if they are a mortal threat to you; the same way the state can legally execute a murderer as they are a threat to society.
Click to expand...

Which in no way negates what I said.
 
obvious Child said:
That doesn't actually address my point. You seriously gloss over multipliers as if they do not exist. Sure government spends money in bad ways, but that money gets pushed down to consumers who then spend the money themselves.
Click to expand...

Who then must pay back this money the government spent poorly and decreasing their buying power.

True, over the long term assuming there is private sector demand to pick up the pieces over time. But Conservative has this asinine notion that swift cuts now will produce swift growth now. That is 100% certified crazy.
Click to expand...

I've not seen anyone argue that.

Not necessarily. Greece still has a debt crisis for a number of reasons. They've cut enough. The bigger question is exports. The irony of Greece is that their debt issue largely stems from the government backing private loans to increase the size of Greece businesses to do exactly that. In the drive to build up Greek Commerce, they dug their own graves. It's a pity that government services are being axed to pay for the failure of Greece business.
Click to expand...

Which in part is what we are doing and the vast majority of people supported it.
 
1Perry said:
Which in no way negates what I said.
Click to expand...
I believe it does. You are trying to establish a case where you can't legally kill someone who is not a threat to you but the state can. Barring a judicial disaster (which is another topic of discussion), the state does not execute innocent people, it kills people it deems are a threat to society.
 
Last edited:
Sheik Yerbuti said:
I believe it does. You are trying to establish a case where you can't legally kill someone who is not a threat to you but the state can. Barring a judicial disaster (which is another topic of discussion), the state does not execute innocent people, it kills people it deems are a threat to society.
Click to expand...

I'm not going to do this all day. McVeigh was killed for revenge. He was no threat to anyone any longer. The government would have killed Manson for revenge. He's harmed no one since being incarcerated.
 
1Perry said:
I'm not going to do this all day. McVeigh was killed for revenge. He was no threat to anyone any longer. The government would have killed Manson for revenge. He's harmed no one since being incarcerated.
Click to expand...
This will have to end in one of those agree to disagree thingies then because I don't view it as revenge. I view it as the state taking action to protect society from convicted killers. They can either kill them or incarcerate them for life, the former providing the ultimate protection for society.
 
Per the thread topic, Employers add no net jobs in Aug.; rate unchanged, wonder what the thoughts are from the Obama supporters regarding his speech last night and wonder how you feel about cutting SS with the payroll tax cuts? Could it be that Obama really does believe that tax cuts will grow new taxpayers? Thought that tax cuts were an expense and don't create jobs so why cut SS?
 
j-mac said:
Let's hear it libs, how the economy is getting better.....Ha! what a joke....:roll:

Then there is this little ditty.....



That 16% must largely be in these forums from what I see of the posting from liberals, and liberals that are ashamed to admit they are liberals in here...:lol:

j-mac
Click to expand...

Well, if I'm reading correctly.... The WEALTHY, you know, the JOB CREATORS... Who STILL have there Bush Tax Cuts... Well, they are NOT CREATING Diddley Crap, as far as jobs. Wait, wait... I though the TAX CUTS were supposed to STIMULATE the economy... Wha happened?

So all the Teabrains who regurgitate the moronic talking point about the Wealthy being the Job Creators...Now they all look like dumb assholes.

In fact, blaming the President for NOT CREATING jobs while DEMANDING the Federal Government GET SMALLER... well, that's downright f-ing STUPID. Talking out of one's ass.

But hey, they're just Teabrains...
 
hazlnut said:
Well, if I'm reading correctly.... The WEALTHY, you know, the JOB CREATORS... Who STILL have there Bush Tax Cuts... Well, they are NOT CREATING Diddley Crap, as far as jobs. Wait, wait... I though the TAX CUTS were supposed to STIMULATE the economy... Wha happened?

So all the Teabrains who regurgitate the moronic talking point about the Wealthy being the Job Creators...Now they all look like dumb assholes.

In fact, blaming the President for NOT CREATING jobs while DEMANDING the Federal Government GET SMALLER... well, that's downright f-ing STUPID. Talking out of one's ass.

But hey, they're just Teabrains...
Click to expand...

Love the liberal tone of civility. How about responding to the jobs plan of Obama, the cutting of SS/Medicare Taxes, and how the govt. is going to get enough revenue from the rich to fund the liberal spending appetite? Barack Obama is incompetent and yet still has support from people like you, says a lot about you.
 
Conservative said:
Per the thread topic, Employers add no net jobs in Aug.; rate unchanged, wonder what the thoughts are from the Obama supporters regarding his speech last night and wonder how you feel about cutting SS with the payroll tax cuts? Could it be that Obama really does believe that tax cuts will grow new taxpayers? Thought that tax cuts were an expense and don't create jobs so why cut SS?
Click to expand...
By that measure, a net gain of 639,000 jobs have been created since Bush's Great Recession ended.
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
By that measure, a net gain of 639,000 jobs have been created since Bush's Great Recession ended.
Click to expand...

Great, definitely Mt. Rushmore numbers! Heard his minions are clearing the space now! Doesn't look like the 25 million plus unemployed and under employed are getting that message but nice diversion from reality. It is 2011 in case you don't have a calendar and we are 2 1/2 years after Obama spent trillions and these are the numbers we have? Wonder how much that is per job when you take that 4 trillion/639,000?
 
Goldenboy219 said:
Also, if the budget is balanced, and debt is eliminated, what does the SS trust fund invest their surplus in? I'll give you a hint, what do the Chinese do with their surplus?
Click to expand...

Some discussion of that issue actually arose toward the end of the 1990s when CBO was projecting growing budget surpluses through the foreseeable future. One issue concerned whether the federal government would have to invest in equities/corporate debt and whether such sizable transactions in those securities could distort the markets, portfolio composition could increase overall risks, and whether such investments would lead to increased political influence over the corporate sector, among other things. Another issue concerned the transition of the existing model of FOMC operations under which the Fed buys/sells Treasury securities to a world in which the Treasury market was too small to have a significant impact on monetary policy. Emerging experience following QE1 and QE2 hint that a post-Treasury FOMC approach might not be as effective in macroeconomic terms as the existing model, but it's too soon to draw any hard conclusions just yet on account of myriad other factors that would have to be analyzed. There would also be international implications, too.
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
By that measure, a net gain of 639,000 jobs have been created since Bush's Great Recession ended.

Conservative said:
Great, definitely Mt. Rushmore numbers! Heard his minions are clearing the space now! Doesn't look like the 25 million plus unemployed and under employed are getting that message but nice diversion from reality. It is 2011 in case you don't have a calendar and we are 2 1/2 years after Obama spent trillions and these are the numbers we have? Wonder how much that is per job when you take that 4 trillion/639,000?
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Umm, that's close to the 1.1 million net gain of jobs generated under 8 years of Bush.
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
Umm, that's close to the 1.1 million net gain of jobs generated under 8 years of Bush.
Click to expand...

Absolutely incredible results and amazing use of taxpayer dollars. It is 2011 and Obama has a net job loss, fewer people in the work force, more people unemployed after spending trillions and you want to give him credit?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom