Page 14 of 16 FirstFirst ... 41213141516 LastLast
Results 131 to 140 of 152

Thread: The recession may be over at last — so what now? [edited]

  1. #131
    Professor

    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    North Dakota
    Last Seen
    09-02-17 @ 08:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    2,357

    Re: The recession may be over at last — so what now? [edited]

    Quote Originally Posted by Truth Detector View Post
    Clue; in order for Government to give money away, it has to come from someone else; Government does not CREAT or PRODUCE anything, it can only TAX and SPEND.
    This is a false dichotomy. You are ignoring the government can tax, spend, and borrow money. The government is running a deficit, therefore the government is borrowing.

    Quote Originally Posted by Truth Detector View Post
    The effect of falsely boosting output on the backs of the American taxpayer solves NOTHING and moves NO curves to any degree; it merely extends the pain over a longer timeline.
    How do explain the numbers showing an increase in GDP? Are you saying they are wrong? To me an increase in GDP would signify the economy has grown, and therefore the policies are "moving the curves."
    I’ve read Meltdown, but prove to me these policies actually will make the recession longer than without them.

    Quote Originally Posted by Phoenixt's
    It's a temporary increase in demand. This increase in demand will be offset at some point in the future by the people whose money is used to pay back the government.
    Yes, it will have to be paid back, but to whom? 75% of the debt is held by the American public. So, technically we will also get the money back with interest.

    Also, just as someone earlier said, we are becoming more efficient. It has also been shown supply drives the economy in the long run. If we become more efficient, shouldn't our supply eventually increase? Therefore, the economy should continue to grow in the long run.

    If the economy will grow in the long run, won't the government’s tax revenue increase over the long run without raising taxes? To me, this would mean we could eventually pay off the debt without raising taxes.

    However, this would also mean we cannot lower taxes when the economy is good, as this is when we should take advantage of the increased revenues to pay off the debt. This shows one error in the previous admin.

    Quote Originally Posted by Phoenix
    Homes and automobiles are in surplus. How many dealerships have been shutdown? The cars from those had to go to other dealerships, these had a surplus of autos. Now that the CfC is over everywhere I see a car dealership they are at maybe 20-25% of their pre 2008 levels. The car makers are simply not replenishing stock. Surplus sell off doesn't increase employment.
    Why were they in surplus? Could it be because the demand was too small? If we used stimulus to increase demand in theory the surplus would go down. It seems to have worked in this case, since you said, "Now that the CfC is over everywhere I see a car dealership they are at maybe 20-25% of their pre 2008 levels." This seems like it supports the fact that demand affects the economy in the short term.

    Why are the car makers not replenishing the stock? Just as someone has said earlier, the supply of the market affects the long run. This illustrates perfectly this fact, as supply (which seems to follow employment) is one of the slowest things to increase after a recession.

    When employment increases, the supply will increase. How can we expect the car dealers to maintain the same output with less of a work force? This may be the reason GM and Chrysler were chosen to be "bailed out." It was an attempt to avoid the effects of a decreased workforce and supply after the demand had been increased to compensate for the surplus.

    Surplus sell off will not increase employment, but it will avoid the effects of maintaining the surplus, which would be further layoffs, downsizing, and reduced prices. The whole point of the stimulus and bailouts were to reduce these effects.

    The economy grew at a 3.5 percent pace in the third quarter, the best showing in two years, fueled by government-supported spending on cars and homes.
    And what do you know; the stimulus and “bailouts” seem to be taking effect. I just hope employment will begin to follow suit.

  2. #132
    Sage
    Renae's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    San Antonio Texas
    Last Seen
    10-23-17 @ 10:14 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    38,972
    Blog Entries
    15

    Re: The recession may be over at last — so what now? [edited]

    I'll wait till next quarters numbers to come out to get excited. Seeing as much of this last quarter was purely pushed by government spending not actual economic activity...

    Cash for Clunkers inflated the numbers for 3rd quarter. And wait till all these idiotic monetary changes they are pushing (Like printing money and borrowing heavily) kick off inflation, we'll be lucky to have 20% interest rates in 2 years.
    Climate, changes. It takes a particularly uneducated population to buy into the idea that it's their fault climate is changing and further political solutions can fix it.



  3. #133
    Professor

    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    North Dakota
    Last Seen
    09-02-17 @ 08:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    2,357

    Re: The recession may be over at last — so what now? [edited]

    If the obvious effects of these monetary policies to increase demand are taking effect, wouldn't that signal that the money is already circulating in the market?

    If this is true, then shouldn't inflation have already followed suit?

    I may be wrong. Perhaps these are the 'sticky' prices some have been talking about.

    Edit:

    I may be ignorant on this subject; someone may have to correct me, but I will say this anyways:

    I think it is important to also realize a large amount of money has been lost during the recession. This would actually create deflation, which can be seen with other similar recessions we have seen in the past. So I think we should ask, will the government spending and actions by the fed actually offset the effects of this deflation enough to cause inflation?
    Last edited by drz-400; 10-31-09 at 04:24 AM.

  4. #134
    I'm not-low all the time
    Kushinator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    West Loop
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:01 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    16,261

    Re: The recession may be over at last — so what now? [edited]

    Quote Originally Posted by Truth Detector View Post
    Wrong again; the FED doles them out; other nations, corporations, trusts and state Governments hold them.


    Quote Originally Posted by Truth Detector View Post
    Once again your comments are begging for a point; and a fact check. The fact is that the biggest holders of Treasury notes are indeed foreign entities with other State Governments coming in at a close second. Yes there are some trusts and citizens who hold the notes; so what?
    Quote Originally Posted by Truth Detector View Post
    Therefore, the BEST thing Government could have done when it had a chance was to reverse the poorly thought out legislation that helped create the financial mortgage bubble that collapsed, balance its spending and budget and cut as much as possible while allowing businesses and individuals to keep more of their hard earned wealth.
    Quote Originally Posted by Truth Detector View Post
    Government policies will do NOTHING to shift the demand curve; what they are doing is moving the curve even further out into the future.
    Quote Originally Posted by Truth Detector View Post
    If you want to see an extreme example of this type of Government intervention, take a look at Zimbabwe. That is where we are headed.
    Quote Originally Posted by Truth Detector View Post
    This is amusing in that there is currently little or zero demand for liquidity as no one whishes to risk capital building stores or businesses where there IS NO DEMAND for products. Interest rates have never been lower and yet the money is not readily available and there is little or no demand for such liquidity in a market where there are fewer consumers.
    Quote Originally Posted by Truth Detector View Post
    As debated here, the future suggests that there will be little to NO GDP growth for the next few years; especially if the Government keeps borrowing, taxing and printing money to spend it on partisan programs intended to make the citizens of the State dependent wards.
    Quote Originally Posted by Truth Detector View Post
    This is patently wrong; it is DEMAND that determines real output NOT supply. I am not sure which university you attended that taught such upside down economics; where did you attend college again?

    SUPPLY has never driven an economy; it is always demand and consumers spending their hard earned wealth will determine what products and services will be produced. Supply can only attempt to keep up with demand and balance their inventories with that demand.
    Quote Originally Posted by Truth Detector View Post
    So according to this logic, all we need to do is produce more! How simple is that???
    Quote Originally Posted by Truth Detector View Post
    The second fallacy to the above argument is the assumption that an economy can only produce so much; in other words, the economic output pie is finite. But we all know this is also false; the economic pie is infinite and therefore there are no limits on the economic output capability of a society.
    Quote Originally Posted by Truth Detector View Post
    Yes there can be limited resources for specific products and this will increase prices which correspondingly affect demand, but the economic output of any nation is unlimited.
    Quote Originally Posted by Truth Detector View Post
    That is the difference between Liberal beliefs versus Conservatives. Liberals believe that the economic pie is finite; therefore, if someone gets MORE of the pie, someone else must correspondingly be getting less. This is of course false.
    Quote Originally Posted by Truth Detector View Post
    This is patently wrong; it is DEMAND that determines real output NOT supply. I am not sure which university you attended that taught such upside down economics; where did you attend college again?
    Quote Originally Posted by Truth Detector View Post

    The graphs you used do not describe the economy or supply and demand, but are actually charts that describe the effects on price based on supply and demand.
    Quote Originally Posted by Truth Detector View Post

    Your farcical assumptions about “supply” argue that if one merely increases the supply, then demand will naturally follow; this is not the case.
    Quote Originally Posted by Truth Detector View Post

    But alas, here we have quasi uneducated amateur and self proclaimed economist falling for one of the biggest lies to date by this administration; that the Government can improve the economy if it only spends a LOT of money it doesn’t have.
    Quote Originally Posted by Truth Detector View Post
    I know you fancy yourself an economic genius, but the charts you are showing are merely descriptions about how supply and demand can affect prices.
    Quote Originally Posted by Truth Detector View Post
    It is obvious from your condescending comments and arrogant assumptions that the irony of your remarks escapes you; you’re using a chart that merely describes how supply and demand affects price; once more give me a great big DUH.
    Quote Originally Posted by Truth Detector View Post
    If we used your nonsensical arguments, all we need to do is produce MORE and demand will occur! But of course we know that demand is not driven by supply, but that supply is driven by demand; and that is what is currently missing in this recession and no amount of Government borrowing and printing of money will change that simple FACT.
    Quote Originally Posted by Truth Detector View Post
    I am laughing at your weak efforts to pretend you actually know the first thing about economics; but you are using a price model to argue how the economy expands.
    Quote Originally Posted by Truth Detector View Post
    Again, the farcical notions you put forth is that one can increase demand for goods and services by simply putting more goods and services into the economy; you’re kidding me right?
    Quote Originally Posted by Truth Detector View Post
    This is priceless coming from someone who thinks a price demand curve is an acurate description of how the economy works.
    Quote Originally Posted by Truth Detector View Post

    Bottom line; until people have a reason to spend (demand) thus creating a reason to invest in businesses (supply) all the Government spending in the world will not move either curve much. The market is looking at the deficit and the National Debt knowing that at some point in time, someone will have to pay for all this spending the Government is doing with zero tangible effects; they also know it will be ALL of us who will have to pay which will reduce the disposable income available to individuals which will further reduce spending (demand) and thus have a large impact on investment and formation of businesses (supply) which create jobs.

    Quote Originally Posted by Truth Detector View Post
    What is at issue currently has NOTHING to do with prices; it has EVERYTHING to do with demand.
    Quote Originally Posted by Truth Detector View Post
    The artificial demand created by giving away someone else’s money to buy a car is short lived and only exacerbates the recession because the money must be paid for by someone else giving their income up.
    Quote Originally Posted by Truth Detector View Post
    The effect of falsely boosting output on the backs of the American taxpayer solves NOTHING and moves NO curves to any degree; it merely extends the pain over a longer timeline.
    Quote Originally Posted by Truth Detector View Post

    I am struggling to see your point here; you state the obvious but it begs the question, what does this have to do with the farcical economic theories Golden expressed in an effort to suggest that Demand is not a major factor in moving the economy in a positive direction and not supply.
    Quote Originally Posted by Truth Detector View Post
    In your case above, supply and the corresponding prices can be increased if we are willing to drill for more of it; but Obama doesn't want this. The end result of that policy will be less oil, higher prices and a further strangling of an already hard pressed economy that runs on oil.
    Here is a list of Truth Detector's errors, fallacies, misunderstandings, and misrepresentations of others. Does anyone here feel it would be worth it to go through and correct all of them?

    When losing a debate, the first TD does is attack the oppositions credibility, character. The second thing he does is flood the debate with so much bull****, nobody in their right mind has the desire to correct such a hefty amount.

    If you want me to, once again, show TD's errors, pick one of the above quotes for analysis. Otherwise, there really is no point (on my behalf to go through all of the posts where the flawed reasoning overlaps continuously).
    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

  5. #135
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Ventura California
    Last Seen
    11-15-11 @ 11:17 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    8,706

    Re: The recession may be over at last — so what now? [edited]

    Quote Originally Posted by Goldenboy219 View Post
    Here is a list of Truth Detector's errors, fallacies, misunderstandings, and misrepresentations of others. Does anyone here feel it would be worth it to go through and correct all of them?

    When losing a debate, the first TD does is attack the oppositions credibility, character. The second thing he does is flood the debate with so much bull****, nobody in their right mind has the desire to correct such a hefty amount.

    If you want me to, once again, show TD's errors, pick one of the above quotes for analysis. Otherwise, there really is no point (on my behalf to go through all of the posts where the flawed reasoning overlaps continuously).
    This coming from someone who believes a price demand curve is a model of the economy.

    You are a laughable caricature of what happens when the uninformed grabs information they are poorly equipped to interpret.

    You couldn't make a coherent argument any more than Obama can make a decision.

    So once more it begs the question; where did you get your degree in Economics? Did you even go to college?


  6. #136
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Ventura California
    Last Seen
    11-15-11 @ 11:17 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    8,706

    Re: The recession may be over at last — so what now? [edited]

    I am going to use a simple analogy to describe what should be painfully obvious to all but the most uninformed or staunchest Obama supporters:

    What the Government is currently doing is this;

    Imagine that the entire US economy is this BIG lake. What the Democrats are doing is dipping their water buckets into one side of the lake, walking to the other side and holding a press conference and pouring the water back into the lake claiming that they are adding MORE water to the lake.

    Now taking this analogy further people like me, and perhaps Fox News, are saying wait a minute, didn't you just take water from one side of the lake and are simply pouring it back in this side which really isn't adding any new water to the lake. Then people like Golden Boy are saying basically; what a stupid argument, of course what you don't see is that while they were walking from the other side of the lake they actually divined more water to fill their buckets further and therefore they actually really are adding to the lake!

    And there you have it; Obamanomics made simple for those who find complex ways of avoiding the obvious.

    Carry on; it is obvious this debate will only end up in the circle of futility with people like Goldenboy who think price demand curves describe and entire economy and its outputs.

  7. #137
    I'm not-low all the time
    Kushinator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    West Loop
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:01 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    16,261

    Re: The recession may be over at last — so what now? [edited]

    Quote Originally Posted by Truth Detector View Post
    This coming from someone who believes a price demand curve is a model of the economy.
    A price demand curve model? This is why you have issues in debating such topics. A demand curve is not a model per say, it simply states the quantity demanded at different price levels.

    I did not show you a "price demand curve". Instead, what was presented was a long run aggregate supply curve, which clearly states that in the long run, output is solely determined by supply. When combined with a long run aggregate demand curve, we get the equilibrium price level along with the total output. Therefore, in the long run, price is solely determined by aggregate demand.

    Your opinion on the matter does nothing to strengthen your position. What you are going to have to prove is that the slope of the aggregate supply-- in the long run-- is not undefined(vertical line). Good luck in proving that!

    You are a laughable caricature of what happens when the uninformed grabs information they are poorly equipped to interpret.
    On the contrary, all of your responses have shown you do not have the slight idea about what we are discussing.

    So once more it begs the question; where did you get your degree in Economics? Did you even go to college?
    Is this your obsession? I'll tell you what, answer me these simple questions, and ill tell you where i went to school. Sound good?

    Were you wrong in this statement?

    Originally Posted by Truth Detector
    Wrong again; the FED doles them out; other nations, corporations, trusts and state Governments hold them.
    Does the Fed dole out us treasury certificates?


    Where you wrong in this statement?
    Once again your comments are begging for a point; and a fact check. The fact is that the biggest holders of Treasury notes are indeed foreign entities with other State Governments coming in at a close second. Yes there are some trusts and citizens who hold the notes; so what?
    Are the biggest holders of US treasuries foreign entities? If so, show a link or some sort of proof.

    We are going to start with the two major failures of which basic economic knowledge is needed to come to a truthful conclusion. Before we move on to the more pressing issues, lets start small TD.

    So?
    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

  8. #138
    Professor
    Phoenix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    South Carolina
    Last Seen
    04-27-17 @ 10:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    1,782

    Re: The recession may be over at last — so what now? [edited]

    Quote Originally Posted by drz-400 View Post
    Yes, it will have to be paid back, but to whom? 75% of the debt is held by the American public. So, technically we will also get the money back with interest.
    To whom the debt is owed doesn't matter. The debt service on it still has to be paid.
    As far as paying it back and getting interest, a better question would be when and how since the US Government hasn't reduced their debt in over 70 years or more. So it should be stated as "In theory we will get......"
    Quote Originally Posted by drz-400 View Post
    Also, just as someone earlier said, we are becoming more efficient. It has also been shown supply drives the economy in the long run. If we become more efficient, shouldn't our supply eventually increase? Therefore, the economy should continue to grow in the long run.
    Only if someone will buy whatever it is that is being produced. Supply for the sake of supply is useless. Unless a demand exists why would a person make something?
    Quote Originally Posted by drz-400 View Post
    If the economy will grow in the long run, won't the government’s tax revenue increase over the long run without raising taxes? To me, this would mean we could eventually pay off the debt without raising taxes.
    That would only work if we reduced spending to a break even point.
    Right now we are spending more than we make.
    Quote Originally Posted by drz-400 View Post
    However, this would also mean we cannot lower taxes when the economy is good, as this is when we should take advantage of the increased revenues to pay off the debt. This shows one error in the previous admin.
    Taxes aren't the problem with the debt. SPENDING is. As I mentioned before GOVCO spends more than it makes.

    Quote Originally Posted by drz-400 View Post
    Why were they in surplus? Could it be because the demand was too small?
    Exactly.


    Quote Originally Posted by drz-400 View Post
    Why are the car makers not replenishing the stock? Just as someone has said earlier, the supply of the market affects the long run. This illustrates perfectly this fact, as supply (which seems to follow employment) is one of the slowest things to increase after a recession.
    They aren't replenishing because the demand isn't there. No need to build cars to sit in lots and get old. Employment is a lagging indicator because demand must exist first then the supply chain will begin to ramp up to produce the items that are in demand.
    Quote Originally Posted by drz-400 View Post
    When employment increases, the supply will increase. How can we expect the car dealers to maintain the same output with less of a work force? This may be the reason GM and Chrysler were chosen to be "bailed out." It was an attempt to avoid the effects of a decreased workforce and supply after the demand had been increased to compensate for the surplus.
    GM and Chrysler were bailed out because they employ lots of union employees. Unions pay money to the party in charge.
    From the ashes.

  9. #139
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Ventura California
    Last Seen
    11-15-11 @ 11:17 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    8,706

    Re: The recession may be over at last — so what now? [edited]

    Quote Originally Posted by Goldenboy219 View Post
    A price demand curve model? This is why you have issues in debating such topics. A demand curve is not a model per say, it simply states the quantity demanded at different price levels.

    I did not show you a "price demand curve".
    That is because you don't know what the hell you are talking about; trust me, it was a price demand chart showing how price is affected by supply and demand.

    Quote Originally Posted by Goldenboy219 View Post
    Is this your obsession? I'll tell you what, answer me these simple questions, and ill tell you where i went to school. Sound good?

    Does the Fed dole out us treasury certificates?

    Where you wrong in this statement?
    Yes I mistakenly stated that the Fed doles out Treasury notes. But most knew what my point was without clinging to it in a desperate attempt to hide their own uninformed notions about the economy as you have.

    So now that I admit I meant something other than I had posted, where did you get your college degree in economics?


    Quote Originally Posted by Goldenboy219 View Post
    Are the biggest holders of US treasuries foreign entities? If so, show a link or some sort of proof.

    We are going to start with the two major failures of which basic economic knowledge is needed to come to a truthful conclusion. Before we move on to the more pressing issues, lets start small TD.

    So?
    Here's the breakdown for you, is there a point?

    U.S. NATIONAL DEBT CLOCK
    The Outstanding Public Debt as of 26 Mar 2009 at 12:01:28 PM GMT is:

    $11,052,878,402,387.89

    The estimated population of the United States is 305,885,140
    so each citizen's share of this debt is $36,134.08.
    The National Debt has continued to increase an average of
    $3.76 billion per day since September 28, 2007
    !

    Top 15 holders of U.S. debt:

    (15) Luxembourg
    A country slightly smaller than Rhode Island currently holds $87.2 in US government

    (14) Depository Institutions
    As of the fourth quarter of 2008, the Federal Reserve Board of Governors lists depository institutions as holding approximately $107.3 billion in US debt. This group includes commercial banks, savings banks and credit unions.

    (13) Russia
    Russia's investment in US debt has grown over 330 percent in the past 12 months, from $35.2 billion in January 2008 to $119.6 billion in January 2009

    (12) United Kingdom
    Britain currently holds $124.2 billion in US debt, but the number has fluctuated dramatically in the past year, ranging from $279 billion, but dropping to as little as $55 billion in the summer of 2008

    (11) Insurance Companies
    According to the Federal Reserve Board of Governors, insurance companies hold $126.4 billion in Treasury securities. This group includes property-casualty and life insurance firms.

    (10) Brazil
    The South American economic giant has $133.5 billion in holdings, according to the Treasury. Brazil’s holdings of US debt have been relatively stable over the past year, with a high of $158 billion in June, and a low of $127 billion in December.

    (9) Caribbean Banking Centers
    The US Treasury identifies this group as institutions in the Bahamas, Bermuda, the Cayman Islands, Netherlands Antilles, Panama and the British Virgin Islands. Holdings recently hit $176.6 billion, up from $109.2 billion in January 2008.

    (8) Oil Exporters
    Big oil means big money... and big investment into US debt. Included in the group of oil exporters are Ecuador, Venezuela, Indonesia, Bahrain, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Algeria, Gabon, Libya, and Nigeria. The group combines for a total of $186.3 billion, up from $140.8 billion one year earlier

    (7) Other Investors
    Although the most recent numbers for this category are from September 2008, this extremely diverse group includes individuals, government-sponsored enterprises, brokers and dealers, bank personal trusts and estates, corporate and non-corporate businesses for a total of $413.2 billion

    (6) Pension Funds
    Pension funds control large amounts of money and are obligated to make relatively safe investments. This group includes both private and local government pension funds, totaling $456.4 billion. The private pension fund category also includes US Treasury securities held by the Federal Employees Retirement System Thrift Savings Plan "G Fund."

    (5) State and Local Governments
    US state and local governments have over a half-trillion dollars invested in American debt, according to the Federal Reserve. The level of investment has remained very stable over the past three years, moving within the range between $516.9 billion and $550.3 billion from 2006 to 2009.

    (4) Japan
    Another major US trade partner, Japan holds a huge amount of the country’s debt, with a stunning $634.8 billion. As recently as January 2008, Japan held the more US debt than any other country

    (3) China (Mainland)
    The buzz word in the market for US debt has been China. The world’s most populous country is also the largest and most important buyer of US debt. From September 2008 to January 2009, China raised its stake by over $120 billion. Standing at $739.6 billion in January, China’s holdings have skyrocketed from $492.6 billion from a year earlier. Hong Kong, which is not included in China's total, holds an additional $71.7 billion.

    (2) Mutual Funds
    According to the Federal Reserve, mutual funds are the holds the second largest amount of US debt compared to other groups. Including money market funds, mutual funds and closed-end funds, this group of investments has bought up $769.1 billion of US Treasury securities

    (1) Federal Reserve and US Intragovernmental Holdings
    That’s right, the biggest holder of US government debt is the United States itself. The Federal Reserve system of banks and other US intragovernmental holdings account for a stunning $4.806 trillion in US Treasury debt. And with recent announcments from the Fed, potentially another $1 trillion could be added... About a decade ago, this number was "only" $2.5 trillion.

    Top 15 holders of U.S. Debt and other good stuff: TradeKing Trader Network

  10. #140
    I'm not-low all the time
    Kushinator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    West Loop
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:01 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    16,261

    Re: The recession may be over at last — so what now? [edited]

    Quote Originally Posted by Truth Detector View Post
    That is because you don't know what the hell you are talking about; trust me, it was a price demand chart showing how price is affected by supply and demand.
    My choice to use a simple graph should be no surprise, considering the topic. I do not trust you, sorry TD, but that is just how it goes at this point in the debate.

    Price is one aspect of equilibrium in a 2D supply demand graph. We can also go to the nth degree and include other aspects such as unemployment, domestic spending, demographic makeup of spending, etc.... All of which, equilibrium will pertain to a correlation to each individual variable as well as how they impact each other (although they also require assumptions for validity).

    Quick question and think carefully; is revenue dependent on output and/or price?
    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 14 of 16 FirstFirst ... 41213141516 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
  •