Page 16 of 63 FirstFirst ... 6141516171826 ... LastLast
Results 151 to 160 of 628

Thread: LA Times: Obama stimulus spending: $246,436 per new job

  1. #151
    User
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Last Seen
    01-03-10 @ 06:41 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    88

    Re: LA Times: Obama stimulus spending: $246,436 per new job

    Another shotgun reply to various folks:

    Goldenboy219 in post 121: You forget that during this contraction: "out of thing air" growth is greatly diminished, or even regressive.

    Yes that is something that helps define a recession. Recessions occur when investment has not followed the optimal path or when technological advances begin to leave part of the economy behind. So I agree that this 'contraction' had diminished growth. The 'out of thin air' portion of my discussion is where the economy grows. When this is slowed down by investment in non-profitable investments, the economy slows down or shrinks. My contention is that investment in government is non-profitable and thus slows down or shrinks the economy. This investment can take either the form of taxes or that of buying government debt.

    Misterman in post 124: A note - I'm not claiming the government is better than the private sector. All I'm saying is that when the private sector is in a slump, it needs the government to step in, temporarily, to get it going again. That's a stimulus.

    Noted. There are many economists, particularly Keynes, who totally agree with you and feel that the government actually creates the economy itself. Others do not. I fall in the party that does not and I feel that allowing the private sector to recover on its own is better than having government intervention. Previous to the Great Depression, the majority of the recessions in US history were of 6 months or less followed by greater productivity increases, increased employment, and higher wages. Since the Great Depression recessions tend to be over 12 months and usually 18 or more long. Since the 1980s recoveries have been even slower and the increased employment and higher wages portions have been missing. This is what has led us all to feel that the economy has failed to do much for everyone and just a few have benefited.

    Misterman in post 126: How does one make any bank loans without fractional-reserve banking?

    It doesn't very easily. Which is why banking did not really take off until the 1680s and later when the Bank of England 'invented' fractional reserve banking. Without the fractional reserve banking, loans were between individuals (either people, companies, or nations).

    And now a few more notes in passing.

    I do believe that there is a function for the government and government spending. It is even possible that extended and deficit spending in economic downturns helps us get over the downturns. But a better rational behind the 'stimulus' spending is that costs are down and I would rather the government got a better deal for my tax money than spending in a boom economy.

    That said, the government has to reign in its spending during good times and pay down the debt in order to help the economy even more. This has not happened in a very long time in the US and both parties are guilty of it and will most likely continue to do so.

    I would also like to thank everyone on this discussion for making an effort to actually debate the issue raised in the article and not degenerating into sniping s**t that you can get from just turning on the TV and listening to CNN or Fox.

  2. #152
    I'm not-low all the time
    Kushinator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    West Loop
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    16,254

    Re: LA Times: Obama stimulus spending: $246,436 per new job

    Quote Originally Posted by phattonez View Post
    Just again an appeal to populatiry.
    Are you afraid to answer the question? If the Austrian school was so relevant, how was it that they yet to publish anything relevant the last 25 years?

    I have no problem with decreasing taxes since this would decrease the burden of government. However, if you increase government spending while doing this then you haven't really accomplished anything.
    Tax cuts (as expressed during the Bush years) will have little effect on boosting demand due to the high rate of savings.

    We would have that or something very close to it with free banking since people would lose confidence in those banks that did not have it.
    Wrong! Remember the the deflation thread?

    Quote Originally Posted by Goldenboy219 View Post
    Recessions were common from 1865 to 1917, with 338 months of contraction and 382 months of expansion (compared to 518 months of expansion and 96 months of contraction from 1945 to 1996)

    The longest contraction on record was 65 months, from October 1873 to March 1879.
    What were you talking about averaging up/down stability? Where is this steady growth you talked about?
    Last edited by Kushinator; 12-09-09 at 06:10 PM.
    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. #153
    Sage
    misterman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Last Seen
    02-09-12 @ 08:41 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,913

    Re: LA Times: Obama stimulus spending: $246,436 per new job

    Quote Originally Posted by carlkay58 View Post
    That said, the government has to reign in its spending during good times and pay down the debt in order to help the economy even more. This has not happened in a very long time in the US and both parties are guilty of it and will most likely continue to do so.
    Exactly, and that's a political problem that gets in the way of doing this Keynesian stuff.

  4. #154
    I'm not-low all the time
    Kushinator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    West Loop
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    16,254

    Re: LA Times: Obama stimulus spending: $246,436 per new job

    Quote Originally Posted by misterman View Post
    Exactly, and that's a political problem that gets in the way of doing this Keynesian stuff.
    Agreed. You will be hard pressed to find a logical reason to decrease spending during a crisis. As recent history suggests, you will be hard pressed to find a logical politician attempt to decrease spending during a boom!
    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. #155
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Last Seen
    01-21-10 @ 02:59 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    744

    Re: LA Times: Obama stimulus spending: $246,436 per new job

    Quote Originally Posted by Goldenboy219 View Post
    Agreed. You will be hard pressed to find a logical reason to decrease spending during a crisis. As recent history suggests, you will be hard pressed to find a logical politician attempt to decrease spending during a boom!
    The only "crisis", is spending, period!

  6. #156
    I'm not-low all the time
    Kushinator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    West Loop
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    16,254

    Re: LA Times: Obama stimulus spending: $246,436 per new job

    Quote Originally Posted by Jackboot View Post
    The only "crisis", is spending, period!
    What were you saying between 2001-2009? Did you once time cry, "raise taxes"!!!!!!
    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. #157
    Sage
    misterman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Last Seen
    02-09-12 @ 08:41 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,913

    Re: LA Times: Obama stimulus spending: $246,436 per new job

    Quote Originally Posted by Goldenboy219 View Post
    What were you saying between 2001-2009? Did you once time cry, "raise taxes"!!!!!!
    They never do. Cut taxes, then cut some more. Cut spending, then cut some more. Then whine about government being incompetent.

  8. #158
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:18 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    76,458

    Re: LA Times: Obama stimulus spending: $246,436 per new job

    Quote Originally Posted by Goldenboy219 View Post
    What were you saying between 2001-2009? Did you once time cry, "raise taxes"!!!!!!
    Was unemployment at 10%?

    Were we being threatened with welfare and treehugger taxes?

    I was making good money before the Libbos took over.
    Quote Originally Posted by Top Cat View Post
    At least Bill saved his transgressions for grown women. Not suggesting what he did was OK. But he didn't chase 14 year olds.

  9. #159
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Epic Mountain
    Last Seen
    12-28-09 @ 06:07 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,384

    Re: LA Times: Obama stimulus spending: $246,436 per new job

    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    Was unemployment at 10%?

    Were we being threatened with welfare and treehugger taxes?

    I was making good money before the Libbos took over.
    Don't you see Bush waited 8 years to fully tank everything so people like you could blame it on libbos. IT'S ALL PART OF THE MASTER PLAN! BWAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!


    IT'S ALL THE REPUBLICANS' FAULT!

  10. #160
    I'm not-low all the time
    Kushinator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    West Loop
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    16,254

    Re: LA Times: Obama stimulus spending: $246,436 per new job

    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    Was unemployment at 10%?
    Of course not, which strikes a serious question mark in regards to the Bush policy. Why was spending not being followed by increased taxation? Now when we are in a very severe downturn, its time to cut spending and taxes?

    I think you have it backwards. Unless of course efficiently balancing the budget is of no importance.

    Were we being threatened with welfare and treehugger taxes?
    Where was the increased taxation to pay for the war, and increased military spending? You know, the conservative thing to do

    I was making good money before the Libbos took over.
    Has nothing to do with the libbos!
    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 16 of 63 FirstFirst ... 6141516171826 ... 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
  •