Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 26

Thread: Crisis cost up to $14 trillion, Dallas Fed says

  1. #11
    Sage
    Fisher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Last Seen
    12-06-13 @ 02:44 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    17,002

    Re: Crisis cost up to $14 trillion, Dallas Fed says

    Quote Originally Posted by Kushinator View Post
    There is a difference between an expenditure and the opportunity cost of a crisis. You should have at least read the link in the OP before commenting.



    Waste is not a government specific problem. It is generally accepted that the government is more wasteful than the private sector due to differences in motivation (profit vs governance). However, when the private sector is in severe disarray, only the public sector can fill the shortfall left by a decline in private investment and domestic consumption.
    Well since your link cites over $12T in direct assistance given, perhaps you should have read the link. The fact that the government can do something does not mean that the government should do something. As a so-called libertarian, I would think that you would know the difference.

  2. #12
    I'm not-low all the time
    Kushinator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    West Loop
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:52 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    16,257

    Re: Crisis cost up to $14 trillion, Dallas Fed says

    Quote Originally Posted by Harshaw View Post
    No, it wasn't. It was predicated on your implication that the only reason someone would want to reduce spending is because of the political party of the President. But you knew that.
    Well, we know it couldn't be based on valid macroeconomic logic. Therefore we are left with political party.
    It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.
    "Wealth of Nations," Book V, Chapter II, Part II, Article I, pg.911

  3. #13
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    EUSSR
    Last Seen
    03-24-14 @ 01:43 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    3,851

    Re: Crisis cost up to $14 trillion, Dallas Fed says

    Quote Originally Posted by Kushinator View Post
    The financial crisis cost the U.S. economy $6 trillion to $14 trillion—and possibly twice that...
    Makes you wanna do like in your avatar.

  4. #14
    Filmmaker Lawyer Patriot
    Harshaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:05 PM
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    29,570

    Re: Crisis cost up to $14 trillion, Dallas Fed says

    Quote Originally Posted by Kushinator View Post
    Well, we know it couldn't be based on valid macroeconomic logic. Therefore we are left with political party.
    I suspected this was a troll/bait thread from the start. Your responses confirm it.
    “Offing those rich pigs with their own forks and knives, and then eating a meal in the same room, far out! The Weathermen dig Charles Manson.”-- Bernadine Dohrn

  5. #15
    I'm not-low all the time
    Kushinator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    West Loop
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:52 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    16,257

    Re: Crisis cost up to $14 trillion, Dallas Fed says

    Quote Originally Posted by Fisher View Post
    Well since your link cites over $12T in direct assistance given, perhaps you should have read the link. The fact that the government can do something does not mean that the government should do something. As a so-called libertarian, I would think that you would know the difference.
    It is a matter of values. Doing nothing equates to a grave travesty. Ensuring the system (global!) does not go belly up is in fact something the government must do!

    $12 trillion in direct assistance is not an expenditure unless it has yet to be recovered. There are still losses with GM and AIG that have impacted expenditures. A more astute student of economics would understand that opportunity costs are of the most severe.

    From the article:

    "The 2007–09 meltdown produced a huge downshift in the path of economic output, consumption and financial wealth," the paper said. "The nation has borne additional costs arising from psychological consequences, skill atrophy from extended unemployment, a reduced set of economic opportunities and increased government intervention in the economy."
    From the paper:

    One way to measure the cost of lost output is in terms of how much worse off society is relative to a baseline trend that might have existed absent the crisis. Such an exercise is crucial to grasping the magnitude of what occurred and the
    effects of the still-emerging recovery. Output per person as of mid-2013 stood 12 percent below the average of U.S. economic recoveries over the past half century, corroborating a large body of literature suggesting that recoveries from financial crises are slower than rebounds from typical recessions (Chart 1). Our bottom-line estimate of the cost of the crisis, assuming output eventually returns to its pre-crisis trend path, is an output loss of $6 trillion to $14 trillion.
    AKA the area between the two lines (after they intersect of course!).



    I know this is a lot to comprehend given your inclination to use political lean as a means of supporting your position. Take your time.
    It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.
    "Wealth of Nations," Book V, Chapter II, Part II, Article I, pg.911

  6. #16
    I'm not-low all the time
    Kushinator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    West Loop
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:52 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    16,257

    Re: Crisis cost up to $14 trillion, Dallas Fed says

    Quote Originally Posted by Harshaw View Post
    I suspected this was a troll/bait thread from the start. Your responses confirm it.
    If you can't keep up with the discussion, I do expect you to run away and claim bait/troll.

    Be gone.
    It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.
    "Wealth of Nations," Book V, Chapter II, Part II, Article I, pg.911

  7. #17
    Filmmaker Lawyer Patriot
    Harshaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:05 PM
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    29,570

    Re: Crisis cost up to $14 trillion, Dallas Fed says

    Quote Originally Posted by Kushinator View Post
    If you can't keep up with the discussion, I do expect you to run away and claim bait/troll.

    Be gone.
    No, I kept up with the discussion.

    The point is, you're saying the only reason someone may want to cut spending is because of partisanship.

    That's absurd on its face.

    And no, even if their reasoning isn't sound, it doesn't leave ONLY partisanship as their motivation.

    You know this. Thus, you're simply baiting. If you weren't, you would have responded to my first post differently.

    And considering it was just about the only point you tried to make in the OP, that makes the whole thread a bait thread.
    “Offing those rich pigs with their own forks and knives, and then eating a meal in the same room, far out! The Weathermen dig Charles Manson.”-- Bernadine Dohrn

  8. #18
    I'm not-low all the time
    Kushinator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    West Loop
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:52 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    16,257

    Re: Crisis cost up to $14 trillion, Dallas Fed says

    Quote Originally Posted by Harshaw View Post
    And no, even if their reasoning isn't sound, it doesn't leave ONLY partisanship as their motivation.
    No. Either partisanship or poor macroeconomic logic; the two tend to go hand-in-hand.

    You know this. Thus, you're simply baiting. If you weren't, you would have responded to my first post differently.

    And considering it was just about the only point you tried to make in the OP, that makes the whole thread a bait thread.
    The point made in the OP was that our economic reality justifies federal expenditure. I know it's difficult to comprehend, but it is what it is.
    It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.
    "Wealth of Nations," Book V, Chapter II, Part II, Article I, pg.911

  9. #19
    Filmmaker Lawyer Patriot
    Harshaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:05 PM
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    29,570

    Re: Crisis cost up to $14 trillion, Dallas Fed says

    Quote Originally Posted by Kushinator View Post
    No. Either partisanship or poor macroeconomic logic; the two tend to go hand-in-hand.


    The point made in the OP was that our economic reality justifies federal expenditure. I know it's difficult to comprehend, but it is what it is.
    No, your point was quite clear, and your continued gymnastics in dodging what I'm saying drive it home even further.

    It's no problem; I simply won't make the mistake of crediting you with good faith in the future. Carry on.
    “Offing those rich pigs with their own forks and knives, and then eating a meal in the same room, far out! The Weathermen dig Charles Manson.”-- Bernadine Dohrn

  10. #20
    I'm not-low all the time
    Kushinator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    West Loop
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:52 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    16,257

    Re: Crisis cost up to $14 trillion, Dallas Fed says

    Quote Originally Posted by Harshaw View Post
    No, your point was quite clear, and your continued gymnastics in dodging what I'm saying drive it home even further.
    Here is your initial response:

    Quote Originally Posted by Harshaw View Post
    I assume, then, that the "specific subset" to whom you are addressing this does not include those who want to reduce spending having nothing to do with the political party of the President of the United States?
    To which I label those who identify with the bold as re-tar-ded. If your participation in this thread is meant to substitute economic logic with semantics, it has been successful.
    It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.
    "Wealth of Nations," Book V, Chapter II, Part II, Article I, pg.911

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •