• 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!

Under Sanders, income and jobs would soar, economist says

You obviously have a dim view of government spending, especially deficit spending. But you have not provided any explanation or example of it not working.

What is your basis for claiming that money taxed and spent is less productive than the same money sitting in the savings accounts of the rich? Money spent is money earned by businesses, which is what any economy needs. Money sitting in bank accounts does nothing for the economy.


INCENTIVE.....its a foreign concept to left wing ideologues who prefer authortarian " solutions " over free markets.

If investors are SAVING, you incentivize new investment through a Supply Side strategy and let the free market do what it does best.

Since you posess no practical knowledge and have wasted countless hours becoming a expert on a ridiculous theory that's not being applied anywhere in the world, your ONLY solution is " stimulus ".

Massive Govt debt to fund bloated and wasteful programs. " Debt " is inconsequential and printed currency is " risk free "....your words " expert."....Lol.

Same goes for Bernie Sanders. He's economically incompetent, all Socialist are.

According to you, Venezuela should be able to print their way out of their current mess and if Greece had their own sovereign currency they would have been able to do the same.

You people crack me up. Youre a bunch of self professed " experts " who are as economically ignorant as they come.
 
Without strong family units, it won't happen no matter how free you make education.

Yup !!!

Erod you da man !
 
INCENTIVE.....its a foreign concept to left wing ideologues who prefer authortarian " solutions " over free markets.

If investors are SAVING, you incentivize new investment through a Supply Side strategy and let the free market do what it does best.

So you incentivize greater investment by decreasing aggregate demand. Genius stuff, there, Mr. R.
 
So you incentivize greater investment by decreasing aggregate demand. Genius stuff, there, Mr. R.


Incentivizing New private sector investment doesn't decrease aggregate demand.

Lol.....where did you come up with that ?
 
Some people consider Bernie Sanders' version of 'socialism' to equal the Soviet Union and Cuba.

he's closer to the status quo in Canada and Sweden, but that's not as exciting. to be fair, idiots on the left compared Bush to hitler and made a snuff film about him, so there's that. politics turns otherwise ok people into nutters.
 
And it's a problem that they are. Even State school has gotten out of control these days. But an educated populace is a necessity to a free democratic republic, so it's in our best interest to ensure that our education system is open and available to all, and top-notch.

Except that one of the reasons the cost of school has gotten out of control is the proliferation of government loans for education.
 
Government spending is spending. It adds directly to GDP.

If the feds create and spend $1 trillion on, say, infrastructure, that is $1 trillion that American companies and workers will earn; plus, you have secondary effects, where those workers' salaries are spent and re-spent. That would be, at the very least, a $1 trillion boost to the economy, and probably more like $2-$3 trillion.

Assuming that the capacity exists to do the work (enough idle labor, materials, machines, etc.), there is no downside, like inflation. If you think you know of a downside that outweighs all of those new jobs, please spell it out for us.

Socialism has nothing to do with it.

no government spending pulls from the economy.
as people and business have to pay for all of that spending through usually increased
taxes and good ol Bernie is going to slam people with taxes that is for sure.

they aren't jobs. it is work. it is the same BS line that Obama gave when he payed out hundreds of billions
of dollar for so called shove ready jobs that never happened.

sure they get work for a few weeks then are laid off again. those are not jobs.
your right socialism doesn't have anything to do with it.

crappy economic policies do.
 
You can joke but it isn't free. Bernie's plans have price tags but the benefits outweigh the costs.

18 trillion dollars in new spending with only 7 trillion in tax income.
I don't see how an 11 trillion dollar deficit is outweigh the costs.
 
Most fundamental is that for an economy to prosper, it must bring money to those who spend. When income is concentrated it constrains spending and causes economic stagnation -- for everyone except those who had the benefit of that concentration.

Sanders knows that and has plans to essentially cause the growth in middle-class incomes that existed in the late 1930s and early 1940s, using the same methods.

yet we don't live in a zero sum economy and market fluidity keeps that from happening.
 
yet we don't live in a zero sum economy and market fluidity keeps that from happening.

Now now.. I don;t think you get how this works

See.. when the liberals want to talk about the debt and deficit.. they say.. "it doesn;t matter if we go into debt.. the money supply is not finite".. "banks just create money.. they don;t need your deposits"..

The advocates of a non zero sum economy and market fluidity..

BUT if you talk to liberals about reducing spending... suddenly... no one gets paid if the government isn't constantly putting money into the economy by borrowing. Then that infinite money supply shrivels up faster than Bill's testicles after looking at Hillary.
 
I am putting this in Government Spending and Debt and not elections because I think it has more implications with fiscal policy than elections.

Under Sanders, income and jobs would soar, economist says - Feb. 8, 2016

This is such nonsense. Are these the same economists who thought that unemployment would max out at only 6%? We didn't get back down to 6% unemployment until six years after the unemployment rose to 10%. Are these the same economists who were totally caught off guard by the complete economic meltdown during the worst recession since the great depression. They also did not even see the 2015 oil price crash coming.

Lets just all admit that economics is still a developing field, and there are so many unknowns that economic predictions are as unreliable as stock market predictions. Economics have all sorts of political leads and disagree over liberal and free market policies all the time.

We see a lot of Bernies policies in Europe yet unemployment there is 10% not 3.8% and that is the norm. Their middle class incomes are below or not any better than in the US. Sorry but taking away money from people who earned it and giving it away to poor people does not shower our nation with prosperity.
 
Incentivizing New private sector investment doesn't decrease aggregate demand.

Lol.....where did you come up with that ?

How do you manage to get things so backwards so quickly?

Savings decreases aggregate demand. When you save a portion of your income, you can't spend it. With lower aggregate demand, businesses would be crazy to increase investment. If that was the case, every recession would turn itself around immediately.

Your contention was that savings incentivized businesses to invest more. What do you think businesses would do if aggregate demand went up, instead?
 
18 trillion dollars in new spending with only 7 trillion in tax income.
I don't see how an 11 trillion dollar deficit is outweigh the costs.

Why don't you detail the downsides of the national debt, then?

Just one post before you were claiming that all that spending had to be paid for with higher taxes. Now you say that it's going to come from deficit spending. Which is it?
 
Now now.. I don;t think you get how this works

See.. when the liberals want to talk about the debt and deficit.. they say.. "it doesn;t matter if we go into debt.. the money supply is not finite".. "banks just create money.. they don;t need your deposits"..

The advocates of a non zero sum economy and market fluidity..

BUT if you talk to liberals about reducing spending... suddenly... no one gets paid if the government isn't constantly putting money into the economy by borrowing. Then that infinite money supply shrivels up faster than Bill's testicles after looking at Hillary.

Is this going to be yet another thread where you don't accept commonly accepted principles of economics? Should I start drinking right now?
 
Why don't you detail the downsides of the national debt, then?
It has been detailed time and time again.

according to the CBO that you guys love to quote so much as long as it agrees with you I think by like 2030 or so
social spending and debt interest will consume the entire budget. IE all the tax money that the government takes in
will be consumed by those items.

that means all the other outstanding items will need to be paid for by more debt.
the US government is like the person that lives on Credit cards and never pays anything off and then
can't afford what they charge.

the US government has a fiduciary duty to be responsible with the budget and they are not being responsible.
every dollar they borrow means that the taxpayer has to pay that with interest.
currently every person in the US owes the federal government 41k dollars.

Just one post before you were claiming that all that spending had to be paid for with higher taxes. Now you say that it's going to come from deficit spending. Which is it?

sanders plan isn't going to do what that hack of an economist says.
PS I never made those claims. you are either quoting someone else or misquoting me.
 
Is this going to be yet another thread where you don't accept commonly accepted principles of economics? Should I start drinking right now?

there is a difference between commonly accepted principles and liberal distortion of those principles.
I think you fall on the liberal distortion side of things.
 
JohnfrmClevelan said:
Is this going to be yet another thread where you don't accept commonly accepted principles of economics? Should I start drinking right now?
there is a difference between commonly accepted principles and liberal distortion of those principles.
I think you fall on the liberal distortion side of things.
JfC primarily uses the undistorted views of Keynes and Hicks in his arguments here. If you can show how Keynes and Hicks are wrong, please make that point. There is no such thing as "liberal economics." There is only economics.
 
It has been detailed time and time again.

according to the CBO that you guys love to quote so much as long as it agrees with you I think by like 2030 or so
social spending and debt interest will consume the entire budget. IE all the tax money that the government takes in
will be consumed by those items.

that means all the other outstanding items will need to be paid for by more debt.
the US government is like the person that lives on Credit cards and never pays anything off and then
can't afford what they charge.

the US government has a fiduciary duty to be responsible with the budget and they are not being responsible.
every dollar they borrow means that the taxpayer has to pay that with interest.
currently every person in the US owes the federal government 41k dollars.

sanders plan isn't going to do what that hack of an economist says.
PS I never made those claims. you are either quoting someone else or misquoting me.

Your post is accurate and reflects fact.
Because of this, the Socialist will likely ignore it.
 
JfC primarily uses the undistorted views of Keynes and Hicks in his arguments here. If you can show how Keynes and Hicks are wrong, please make that point. There is no such thing as "liberal economics." There is only economics.

Why Keynes Was Wrong - Forbes
Forbes Welcome
 
Does that come with free puppies and blue ribbons for all participants?

with the additional $22,000 income, you could afford to buy your own puppies and ribbons
 
[B said:
ludin[/B]] 18 trillion dollars in new spending with only 7 trillion in tax income.
I don't see how an 11 trillion dollar deficit is outweigh the costs.
First, there wasn't 18 trillion dollars in new spending under Obama. The debt is the accumulation of all debt since 1789. Second, Obama took office during the worst recession since the Great Depression. The result of that recession was a substantial drop in revenue and an increase in automatic safety net program spending. The implication that Obama went on a spending spree is all wrong. Third, we don't have 11 trillion in deficits (e.g. annual amount of expenditures minus revenue). The deficit is about $500 now -- 75% lower than when Obama took office.
 
Why Keynes Was Wrong - Forbes
Forbes Welcome
Bad link: "We can’t find the page you requested but please try:"

If anything, Keynes' work has been triumphantly vindicated by the economic crisis. Keynes critics at the beginning of the economic downturn, predicted that expansionary fiscal and monetary policy would increase interest rates; cause hyperinflation; and devalue the dollar. Those who studied Keynes and understood Hick's IS-LM, realized that both the relationship between money and inflation and the relationship between borrowing and interest rates break down at the zero lower bound; and so they did.
 
The government has two choices and two choices only: spend tax money at the expense of other government spending (cutting some program) or print more money that is based on an empty promise rather than actual money (debt/deficit spending). The former is rarely done because that takes a political spine and Democrats, and many Republicans nowadays, are missing said spine, and the latter is what Sanders is talking about here. If we tax more, then we are taking money from one place and putting in another place which is less likely to be able to supply a return on investment to the government in the form of new tax revenues. It's a zero sum gain unless it produces long term stability, which it never has and never will because of the very nature of debt/deficit "stimulus" spending. Once it's over, it's over, the money is lost and wasted, and any upturn reverses immediately, rapidly, and with a pendulum swing that can take the economy to a point further backwards than where it began prior to the government infusion of tax dollars.

actually, reagan implemented the 'starve the beast' economic approach advocated by charles heatherly
the intent was to spend so much of federal revenues on other things that little remained to cover the costs of social safety net programs
this was the era when the federal government discontinued mental health funding and most of those requiring mental assistance were forced into the streets to fend for themselves. one of the many 'benefits' of the starve the beast philosophy

the keynesian approach is instead to 'feed the beast'
if more money is provided to those who are expected to spend rather than save it, a multiplier effect will result. my expenditures become your revenues. this tendency towards consumption causes that money to circulate in the economy multiple times annually. meanwhile, government revenues required to cover those primarily fixed governmental costs, are largely fixes, rather than variable. thus the more times revenue passes the tax post while being spent, the tax revenues multiply ... while the government costs remain largely unchanged
the benefits of this practice are lost if the money is left with those who would save rather than spend; that is today's practice, which provides tax breaks to the likes of the walton family, that has no need to spend to cover their consumer needs. the tax savings provided to the waltons does not get into the economy to generate a multiplier effect
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starve_the_beast
 
It has been detailed time and time again.

Yes, the downfall of our economy due to the national debt has been detailed many times, starting about 35 years ago, when Ronald Reagan sharply increased the debt. And those economists have been right about the debt exactly zero times. Inflation? No. High interest rates? Of course not. Interest becoming unsustainable? Nope. It's a losing argument, unsupported by the evidence, and based on faulty economic theory.

according to the CBO that you guys love to quote so much as long as it agrees with you I think by like 2030 or so
social spending and debt interest will consume the entire budget. IE all the tax money that the government takes in
will be consumed by those items.

I don't like to quote the CBO. They are comprised of the same type of mainstream economists that have been getting it wrong for the past four decades. They can make reasonable short-term calculations, but when they do crazy stuff like project ever-increasing surpluses (Clinton years) without a trade surplus, they are clearly following bad formulas.

that means all the other outstanding items will need to be paid for by more debt.
the US government is like the person that lives on Credit cards and never pays anything off and then
can't afford what they charge.

the US government has a fiduciary duty to be responsible with the budget and they are not being responsible.
every dollar they borrow means that the taxpayer has to pay that with interest.
currently every person in the US owes the federal government 41k dollars.

That statement demonstrates a total lack of understanding of government finance.

The U.S. government has a duty to run the country to the best of its ability. The economy, while a big factor, is only one factor. It is more important (and better for the economy) to put the unemployed to work than it is to make the stock market go up. The two don't have to be mutually exclusive, but mainstream economic theory ridiculously states that a certain amount of unemployment is necessary to keep prices down, and we all know where the government's emphasis has been on that - prices.

sanders plan isn't going to do what that hack of an economist says.

I agree that his numbers are pretty rosy. But I also think that Sanders' plan is fundamentally sound, and would benefit the economy more than being frugal would. Who can argue with increased infrastructure spending, if he can get it through? Government spending boosts economies. Always has, always will.

PS I never made those claims. you are either quoting someone else or misquoting me.

Here's what you said about it being paid by taxation:
no government spending pulls from the economy.
as people and business have to pay for all of that spending through usually increased
taxes and good ol Bernie is going to slam people with taxes that is for sure.

...and here's what you said about deficit spending:
18 trillion dollars in new spending with only 7 trillion in tax income.
I don't see how an 11 trillion dollar deficit is outweigh the costs.

Anyway, I don't really care to make a case of that, I'm just pointing out your inconsistency in your apparent rush to say something negative about Sanders.

If Bernie is listening to his economic advisers, he's going to finance his plans through deficit spending more than tax increases. I don't care what he's saying now. Voters are too stupid and reactionary to hear certain things, and he would be crazy to say any of those things until he is safely in the White House.
 
Back
Top Bottom