Reverand Paul gives a sermon on the Book of Fiscal Conservatism

jaeger19 · Jan 17, 2017

JasperL said:
I think a pretty accurate reflection of reality is people as a group behave rationally. .

Well.. I think there would be some disagreement about that. But lets say for argument sake you are right. So what? That doesn't have bearing on the discussion. The question is whether human behavior is controlled by mathematical absolutes.. or whether what people feel determines their behavior.

Case in point.

When supply drops below demand, prices rise, they don't EVER fall.

Wrong. In almost every school district.. for a student to participate in athletics they must have an athletic health physical for the year.. Most of the school year, demand for physicals is relatively steady and physicals cost between say 50 to 120 dollars a physical depending on area.

However, in the summer.. just before school starts the demand for sports physicals increases dramatically as parents want to get their child a physical for the start of the school year. Demand increases above supply. but prices DON"T RISE... in fact they fall as you see signs pop up in Clinics all over the country (Free Sport Physicals) or advertising cheap sport physicals. In fact.. clinics will even go in the schools themselves to give FREE or very reduced price sport physicals.

So the reality is that the best time to get a free or reduced price sport physical... is when demand has increased relative to supply.

Well, OK, so people were concerned, some predicted hyperinflation - that's what ZeroHedge has been predicting for nearly a decade now - and what has come of this deep concern? Do you see hyperinflation? What are Treasury rates doing? 2.4%. That's off the record lows but still historically VERY low

.

No.. you miss the point. The point isn't that people "were" concerned.. its that people are and have been concerned. Our country has operated since its beginning on the idea of being careful with debt. Its why we had a balanced budget back in the late 1990's. Its why Obama reduced the deficit in a time where it was tricky to reduce the deficit.

what has come of this deep concern? Do you see hyperinflation?

See.. this is the issue. Because of the way you look at this you say "see.. no hyperinflation"... which you think proves that hyperinflation can't or won't occur.

But what you fail to realize is that because we are concerned about debt and deficit.. we and through government have worked to control debt and deficit and thus reduce fears of hyperinflation.

So in answer to your question:

So what won out - irrational feelings by people whose fear of inflation has been ginned up by right wingers and inflation 'hawks'

Obviously its " irrational fears by people". Its why Obama was compelled to reduce deficits and during a time when it was hard to reduce deficits.

The point is that concern over the confidence fairy stuff is nonsense.

the point is.. that the confidence fairy as you cause it is very very very.. real.

I'll just end it by saying your theory is ultimately an empirical question,

and your anecdote about the public's concern about deficits and debt, in these circumstances, actually disproves your hypothesis. Despite all this supposed worry, inflation remained low, interest rates low, wage increases low.

Actually it supports my theory. Because of the publics concern about deficits and debt.. the government acts in ways to curb those fears. In fact, I would argue that its less that the government ACTUALLY lowers debt and deficit.. but merely that the people FEEL that debt and deficit are a concern and are being addressed by the government and our financial institutions.

And yes, economics is about "human behavior" but the field is premised on people/particpants/markets over the long term behaving rationally.

Which is likely why economists get it wrong so often. As our most recent bubble and collapse demonstrate.

JasperL · Jan 17, 2017

austrianecon said:
But in economics, especially if you believe in Keynesian economics (which I do not).. absolutes are needed in all models. Non-absolutes throw off models. Free markets work because there is no perfect information (irony I know) and people ignore the collective. I.E. You see the glass half full and I see is as half empty. Both sides are competing against each other. It's only when both sides agree we have a Bull or Panic markets.

But markets also work because market participants do make rational decisions as a group. I'm not really sure what you're arguing. It's certainly NOT that people make optimal decisions or anything close to it, but that's different than rational.

We are discussing it. Rationality can be irrational to others. Dan Ariely fails to address this. I am actually surprised he didn't come up with an answer for this (well not really). In every case of the "Commons", it always comes down to the individual. But at that point it's not the "Commons" but rather individualism. NAZIs were highly collective but highly individually motivated. So were the Soviets. So is the US or any other system you can name. It's the mentality, it's good for me so it's good for the commons. But we all had different ideas.

The book as I recall doesn't talk about the commons at all, or problems similar to that. Based on his writings, I'm pretty sure you wouldn't have to explain the tragedy of the commons to him, however. I don't really understand the rest of your point.

I'll give you a personal example.. I am a Penn State undergrad. I am loyal to The Family Clothesline. It's owned by Penn State Alumni and hires Penn State students and locals. I could get my sweatshirts, jerseys, t-shirts and so on much cheaper from others. As an Alumni, I support local at Penn State, I know many of the people who work at the local store. They were there when I was a Freshman. After 4 years they were family. Christmas cards, cookies or even making sure I had some place to go for a holiday weekend when dorms closed. To economist based on price mechanisms, it's irrational that I spend 10 to 20% premium. Just as it's irrational to most I donate to Nittany Lion Club for seats when I can buy cheaper on StubHub and so on. Yet for the collective, I pay more.

I'm a little lost what we're arguing about. From a purely utilitarian standpoint, your first irrational decision is to buy Penn State gear at all. So from the beginning some concept of 'utility' is motivating your purchase, and that you get more utility from buying from local businesses who have become like friends isn't irrational at all.

austrianecon · Jan 18, 2017

JasperL said:
But markets also work because market participants do make rational decisions as a group. I'm not really sure what you're arguing. It's certainly NOT that people make optimal decisions or anything close to it, but that's different than rational.

No, that's an assumption of someone being rational. Rational means to act with reason or logic, that means the most optimal. Rational Choice theory is the assumption people act rationally with a certain number of choices. There in lies the problem. It's assumption is based on limited choices and limited information. Except there are no such thing as limited choices for market participants or limited knowledge.

JasperL said:
The book as I recall doesn't talk about the commons at all, or problems similar to that. Based on his writings, I'm pretty sure you wouldn't have to explain the tragedy of the commons to him, however. I don't really understand the rest of your point.

My point here is because we act individually and not towards the commons just because something works out doesn't mean in a group setting we would act rationally.

JasperL said:
I'm a little lost what we're arguing about. From a purely utilitarian standpoint, your first irrational decision is to buy Penn State gear at all. So from the beginning some concept of 'utility' is motivating your purchase, and that you get more utility from buying from local businesses who have become like friends isn't irrational at all.

And that's my point. I am acting irrationally in Utilitarian and even most economic theories. Utilitarian theory along with most Economic theories who try to value X as X for everybody is utter crap because once again, we are not rational as a group and ever have been. It's just happenstance.

JasperL · Jan 18, 2017

austrianecon said:
No, that's an assumption of someone being rational. Rational means to act with reason or logic, that means the most optimal. Rational Choice theory is the assumption people act rationally with a certain number of choices. There in lies the problem. It's assumption is based on limited choices and limited information. Except there are no such thing as limited choices for market participants or limited knowledge.

I think we're talking past each other, and I know I'm being imprecise. From a purely financial standpoint, we'd all buy the cheapest clothes that accomplish some purpose, but we buy expensive name brands. New cars instead of used cars. Etc. That's what I meant by 'optimal.' We buy nice clothes for other reasons - they maximize utility somehow, make us feel better, improve our image for business purposes, attract mates, whatever. Those aren't irrational choices.

And I'm not sure what you mean, "there are no such thing as limited choices or limited knowledge." On its face, that's obviously false. If I buy a new road bike, there are at least millions of options, new, used, carbon, steel, various combos of doubles and triples, and I will only evaluate a couple dozen or so, 100 or less if I look at local used market for bikes that fit me. So my choices and knowledge are severely limited. Same if I buy a mutual fund, or bond or stock - humanly impossible to evaluate EVERY option...

My point here is because we act individually and not towards the commons just because something works out doesn't mean in a group setting we would act rationally.

We agree on that.

And that's my point. I am acting irrationally in Utilitarian and even most economic theories. Utilitarian theory along with most Economic theories who try to value X as X for everybody is utter crap because once again, we are not rational as a group and ever have been. It's just happenstance.

I don't see how you're acting irrationally. For whatever reason, you like wearing college gear AND buying it from a locally owned shop. The latter is no more 'irrational' than the former on any scale.

As to "we are not rational as a group" - more accurately IMO is we are at least mostly rational as a group.

jet57 · Jan 18, 2017

Beaudreaux said:
Fiscal Conservatism. One aspect of conservatism that Senator Rand Paul and I are in agreement upon. The Republicans are no better than the Democrats when it comes to spending and debt.

This is a 21 minute video, but if you care at all about the future of this country, and our children's future as well, then you should both watch this video, and then contact your Congressman/Senator to support Senator Paul's budget proposal.

So I watched the video and his lecture is interesting.

He mentions 9.7 trillion dollars several times, so that's the image we're supposed to have. THAT is very interesting because, as he says, Republicans yelled about Obama, and the first thing they want to do is bump up the deficit another 10 trillion... rather hypocritical: that excuse should be interesting.

He wants to freeze expenditures: a good idea in my view, but he doesn't say which ones.

He wants to cut the department of commerce: a sort of Chamber of Commerce on steroids. I have nothing wrong with an oversight dept.

He wants to cut entitlements... They make up 60% of expenditures at $2,475.1 billion. The projected federal 2017 income is $7.4 trillion with almost $ 5.5 billion going to defense in 2016. The cost of living and health care determines need, against fewer contributions due to unemployment and globalization. To cut entitlements seems the long way around the barn if you ask me.

He mentions 9.7 trillion dollars.

Did I note that he mentions 9.7 trillion dollars?

He does say that he wants to audit the department of defense and the Pentagon. An idea that I think would be highly useful.

Over all, Rand is making a pitch for his own idea for a budget that is not revealed. He is probably trying to get other like minded people to sign on to whatever he comes up with. So, on the whole, the video doesn't say much, but some of things he points out are worth looking at.

Critter7r · Jan 19, 2017

jaeger19 said:
Wrong. In almost every school district.. for a student to participate in athletics they must have an athletic health physical for the year.. Most of the school year, demand for physicals is relatively steady and physicals cost between say 50 to 120 dollars a physical depending on area.

However, in the summer.. just before school starts the demand for sports physicals increases dramatically as parents want to get their child a physical for the start of the school year. Demand increases above supply. but prices DON"T RISE... in fact they fall as you see signs pop up in Clinics all over the country (Free Sport Physicals) or advertising cheap sport physicals. In fact.. clinics will even go in the schools themselves to give FREE or very reduced price sport physicals.

So the reality is that the best time to get a free or reduced price sport physical... is when demand has increased relative to supply.

One could just as easily make the argument that the doctors performing physicals in the area have an oversupply of time available to perform those physicals and capitalize on the seasonal increase in demand by selling at the lowest price to gain market share during that time. Which would be similar to a business that has a warehouse full of a particular kind of fireworks that they sell for $10 for 11 months out of the year and then selling them for $5 during the month of June.

JasperL · Jan 19, 2017

jaeger19 said:
Well.. I think there would be some disagreement about that. But lets say for argument sake you are right. So what? That doesn't have bearing on the discussion. The question is whether human behavior is controlled by mathematical absolutes.. or whether what people feel determines their behavior.

I obviously never claimed behavior is controlled by absolutes.

Wrong. In almost every school district.. for a student to participate in athletics they must have an athletic health physical for the year.. Most of the school year, demand for physicals is relatively steady and physicals cost between say 50 to 120 dollars a physical depending on area.

However, in the summer.. just before school starts the demand for sports physicals increases dramatically as parents want to get their child a physical for the start of the school year. Demand increases above supply. but prices DON"T RISE... in fact they fall as you see signs pop up in Clinics all over the country (Free Sport Physicals) or advertising cheap sport physicals.

Obviously there is no shortage of nurse/physician time in that area if they're giving away their services. And you're supposedly a businessman, so you surely understand Marketing for Dummies, which is obviously what's going on here. And tell us, what do you in your businesses when you have clients lining up out the door, weeks long waiting lists? Do you cut your staff, close offices, and slash prices so your waiting list goes to six months? Do competitors LEAVE this market?

So the reality is that the best time to get a free or reduced price sport physical... is when demand has increased relative to supply.

Right, and physicals is all these clinics do, right? You might as well have brought up Black Friday and doorbusters..... :roll:

No.. you miss the point. The point isn't that people "were" concerned.. its that people are and have been concerned. Our country has operated since its beginning on the idea of being careful with debt. Its why we had a balanced budget back in the late 1990's. Its why Obama reduced the deficit in a time where it was tricky to reduce the deficit.

And you're not showing any consequence of this deep concern, except political considerations.

See.. this is the issue. Because of the way you look at this you say "see.. no hyperinflation"... which you think proves that hyperinflation can't or won't occur.

But what you fail to realize is that because we are concerned about debt and deficit.. we and through government have worked to control debt and deficit and thus reduce fears of hyperinflation.

So do you think 30 year bond yields in Japan, at less than 1%, are due to sentiment? Their debt to GDP ratio is roughly 2.3.

And you're using sentiment to explain changes in sentiment - "concerned about debt" .... "thus reduce fears." The question is does a reduction in fear of hyperinflation reduce ACTUAL inflation. We just elected a POTUS and GOP Congress that promise a spending binge AND $trillions in tax cuts, financed by deficits and more debt. By your theory, inflation will depend on what the people believe will happen and not on what that deficit spending (aka Keynesian stimulus) does to wages, demand, exchange rates, etc.

Obviously its " irrational fears by people". Its why Obama was compelled to reduce deficits and during a time when it was hard to reduce deficits.

Again, you're using sentiment to explain changes in sentiment, and here, political sentiment and political expediency.

the point is.. that the confidence fairy as you cause it is very very very.. real.

But you have no examples.

Actually it supports my theory. Because of the publics concern about deficits and debt.. the government acts in ways to curb those fears. In fact, I would argue that its less that the government ACTUALLY lowers debt and deficit.. but merely that the people FEEL that debt and deficit are a concern and are being addressed by the government and our financial institutions.

This is ultimately an empirical question - do you have any evidence for your theory?

Which is likely why economists get it wrong so often. As our most recent bubble and collapse demonstrate.

Even with that, there wasn't a debt bubble and related housing bubble because people desired more debt, and suddenly wanted to buy a house. Ultra cheap money, derivatives, etc... And ultimately, prices resorted to a sustainable level. By your theory, if people just believed that housing prices would remain high, they would, and builders flooding the market with new homesand people unable to pay their mortgage AND the car payment and food aren't relevant because the confidence fairy trumps the market realities.

austrianecon · Jan 20, 2017

JasperL said:
I think we're talking past each other, and I know I'm being imprecise. From a purely financial standpoint, we'd all buy the cheapest clothes that accomplish some purpose, but we buy expensive name brands. New cars instead of used cars. Etc. That's what I meant by 'optimal.' We buy nice clothes for other reasons - they maximize utility somehow, make us feel better, improve our image for business purposes, attract mates, whatever. Those aren't irrational choices.

And this is my point. Many of these things are irrational. Buying a $250,000 home when safely you could afford a $200,000. Buying a brand new car when you safely could afford a "newly" used car. That is the problem here. If you are looking for rational answers you have to look at financial sense of it. Not feel good portion of it.

JasperL said:
And I'm not sure what you mean, "there are no such thing as limited choices or limited knowledge." On its face, that's obviously false. If I buy a new road bike, there are at least millions of options, new, used, carbon, steel, various combos of doubles and triples, and I will only evaluate a couple dozen or so, 100 or less if I look at local used market for bikes that fit me. So my choices and knowledge are severely limited. Same if I buy a mutual fund, or bond or stock - humanly impossible to evaluate EVERY option...

I am specifically talking about the stock market (all of it). There is no limited choices or knowledge there as we are talking about millions of ways to be apart of it, being part of a mutual fund is a choice and the mutual fund runs programs to give the best answer to the solution of RoI. The issue is how that choice and knowledge is processed. I wasn't talking about buying goods. But it can be applied to it as well. You just said there are millions of options. That's not limited choice. In economic theory, Rational Choice Theory is there is only A, B, C and how we value A, B, C specifically. Knowledge on the choices changes all the time in the era of the internet and online reviews as EVERYBODY has an opinion.

JasperL said:
We agree on that.

Okay.. I'll explain why that's important in the next quoted area.

JasperL said:
I don't see how you're acting irrationally. For whatever reason, you like wearing college gear AND buying it from a locally owned shop. The latter is no more 'irrational' than the former on any scale.

As to "we are not rational as a group" - more accurately IMO is we are at least mostly rational as a group.

In my own self interest, economically, I am acting irrationally. Think of it as the biggest bang for the buck theory. I am not following that.

As a group we don't act rationally because we have our own self interest. Think of it this way.. you have 10 voters (buying stuff is like voting), 6 of them vote for Trump, 4 of them vote for Clinton on their own individual self interest. 3 of those Trump voters voted because they wanted change (they valued that higher) but actually have the same believes 90% time in what Clinton stood for. Are they really acting rational? No. One could argue they are acting irrationally.

jaeger19 · Jan 20, 2017

Critter7r said:
One could just as easily make the argument that the doctors performing physicals in the area have an oversupply of time available to perform those physicals and capitalize on the seasonal increase in demand by selling at the lowest price to gain market share during that time. Which would be similar to a business that has a warehouse full of a particular kind of fireworks that they sell for $10 for 11 months out of the year and then selling them for $5 during the month of June.

There is no oversupply of time at that time.

Critter7r · Jan 20, 2017

jaeger19 said:
There is no oversupply of time at that time.

The reduction of prices in the face of increased demand would say you're wrong in that assessment.

jaeger19 · Jan 20, 2017

JasperL said:
I obviously never claimed behavior is controlled by absolutes.
.

Actually you did. Remember.. you just claimed that prices NEVER fall if supply is less than demand. That's an absolute statement.

Obviously there is no shortage of nurse/physician time in that area if they're giving away their services

Actually there is.

And you're supposedly a businessman, so you surely understand Marketing for Dummies, which is obviously what's going on here.

to some degree yes. Some degree of its just because physicians want to support their local schools and so donate their clinics time because they believe in it..

And tell us, what do you in your businesses when you have clients lining up out the door, weeks long waiting lists? Do you cut your staff, close offices, and slash prices so your waiting list goes to six months? Do competitors LEAVE this market?

Actually in some instances that is exactly what happens.

Right, and physicals is all these clinics do, right?

nope

You might as well have brought up Black Friday and doorbusters

Wrong. Because in Black Friday and doorbusters.. the supply is there in the stores.. and they are trying to increase demand. In the case of sport physicals.. the demand for other services is already there.. and the supply is stable. The demand for sport physicals INCREASES the overall demand relative to supply.. and yet prices are lower.

And you're not showing any consequence of this deep concern, except political considerations.

Well.. I guess if you think the consequence of millions or billions of reduction in government spending in the economy is "just a political consideration"..

:roll:

And you're using sentiment to explain changes in sentiment - "concerned about debt" .... "thus reduce fears." The question is does a reduction in fear of hyperinflation reduce ACTUAL inflation. We just elected a POTUS and GOP Congress that promise a spending binge AND $trillions in tax cuts, financed by deficits and more debt. By your theory, inflation will depend on what the people believe will happen and not on what that deficit spending (aka Keynesian stimulus) does to wages, demand, exchange rates, etc.

Yeah.. your still not getting it. Inflation will depend yes on what people believe will happen.. and it will depend on the ACTIONS THEY TAKE based on that belief.

According to your premise.. it doesn't matter what people think, what actions they take based on that thinking.. its just.. "x amount of dollars in the economy will equal x amount of growth. Just mathematical absolutes.

Again, you're using sentiment to explain changes in sentiment, and here, political sentiment and political expediency.

Actually using sentiment to explain BEHAVIOR.

But you have no examples.

Sure, I already explained them.

This is ultimately an empirical question - do you have any evidence for your theory?

Yes.. the observation that people care about debt and deficits.. and this influences how the government handles money and thus the economy. Despite the fact that mathematically can print all the money we need and thus pay all our bills because we have a fiat money system.

Even with that, there wasn't a debt bubble and related housing bubble because people desired more debt, and suddenly wanted to buy a house

Right.. we had people that wanted to buy a house and were willing to take a huge risk to get into the house of their dreams. Despite the "math" not working out for them. And people willing to loan them that money.. despite the "math" not working out for them.

By your theory, if people just believed that housing prices would remain high, they would, and builders flooding the market with new homesand people unable to pay their mortgage AND the car payment and food aren't relevant because the confidence fairy trumps the market realities.

Actually yes. You have gotten that correct. Except for a caveat. See.. if people just believed that housing prices would remain high.. they would.. and builders would flood the market with new homes.. AND people would NOT be unable to pay their mortgage and car payment etc.. because creditors believing that housing prices would still rise.. would still be financing these folks and helping them refinance to make their payments.
Dude THATS HOW THE BUBBLE WAS CREATED IN THE FIRST PLACE.....

by pointing out the bubble.. you just gave empirical evidence of my premise.

jaeger19 · Jan 20, 2017

Critter7r said:
The reduction of prices in the face of increased demand would say you're wrong in that assessment.

no it does not. That's the point...

Critter7r · Jan 20, 2017

jaeger19 said:
no it does not. That's the point...

Well, there's obviously a large enough supply of time for the doctors to lower their prices and take on more patients. Now maybe physicals are so easy to do and overpriced to begin with that when that time of year rolls around, all the doctors are trying to do as many of them as possible because it's like getting free money. But there's a reason that prices fall in the face of increased demand, and it ISN'T because doctors' time is in short supply.

JohnfrmClevelan · Jan 20, 2017

jaeger19 said:
Yes.. the observation that people care about debt and deficits.. and this influences how the government handles money and thus the economy. Despite the fact that mathematically can print all the money we need and thus pay all our bills because we have a fiat money system.

And there it is, folks, the infamous Jaeger 180[SUP]TM[/SUP]. Backing away from the losing premise that consumer behavior is unmoored from economic fundamentals, he deftly changes it mid-debate to "feelings affect politics, then politicians change economic conditions, then behavior changes."

Sure, when Trump makes a ton of cuts and it results in government employees losing their jobs, the economy is going to react negatively - for real, economic reasons. Don't try to tell us it's all because of consumer confidence, and that's what you meant all along.

jaeger19 · Jan 20, 2017

JohnfrmClevelan said:
And there it is, folks, the infamous Jaeger 180[SUP]TM[/SUP]. Backing away from the losing premise that consumer behavior is unmoored from economic fundamentals, he deftly changes it mid-debate to "feelings affect politics, then politicians change economic conditions, then behavior changes."

Sure, when Trump makes a ton of cuts and it results in government employees losing their jobs, the economy is going to react negatively - for real, economic reasons. Don't try to tell us it's all because of consumer confidence, and that's what you meant all along.

no John.. what has happened is that I have shown where you are wrong. That human belief, what we feel causes human behavior.. and not a mathematical identity.

See john.. "its not feelings about politics,, then politicians change economic conditions then Behavior changes."

Its people feel about the economy.. their behavior changes.. whether its the businessman who decides to hire 1 guy instead of 2 because he is "just not that sure things are improved that much". or whether its millions of people being concerned about the debt and deficit and they influence their elected officials. And it means that the behavior of the politicians change..

What Trump THINKS.. dictates his behavior and that results in government employees losing their jobs. The economy MAY react negatively depending on how and what they feel about those cuts. Or they may react positively or not react at all depending on how they feel.

That's what you don't understand John. Your economic fundamentals are simply observations over time on how people tend to behave. We are not moored or tied to "fundamentals" as you call them.

Critter7r · Jan 20, 2017

jaeger19 said:
What Trump THINKS.. dictates his behavior and that results in government employees losing their jobs. The economy MAY react negatively depending on how and what they feel about those cuts.

If Trump fires 20% of the federal workforce tomorrow, the economy will have no choice but to react negatively.

Or they may react positively or not react at all depending on how they feel.

Right, because they'll FEEL like their bank account is still receiving paychecks every week and that will translate into the ability to spend money at Target.

ataraxia · Jan 20, 2017

faithful_servant said:
The problem with debt.spending is that the ONLY group that has ever come together to try to stop this got vilified for doing so. Whether or not you agree with the Tea Party, they have been the only group that has stood up to the status quo and tried to change things. We haven't seen ANY effort from the Left to make a change, just an ongoing support of the status quo within the Dem. party. I think that most of us can agree that both parties are crap at handling debt/spending, yet only conservatives have tried to fix this problem.

I believe that's a common myth. That's not what the numbers and graphs show. Look at the level of deficit vs. the president in charge. Notice how much taller the lines are with the Republicans which happened to have an (R) next to their name:

Only conservatives have fixed the problem? NOT!

jaeger19 · Jan 20, 2017

Critter7r said:
Well, there's obviously a large enough supply of time for the doctors to lower their prices and take on more patients. Now maybe physicals are so easy to do and overpriced to begin with that when that time of year rolls around, all the doctors are trying to do as many of them as possible because it's like getting free money. But there's a reason that prices fall in the face of increased demand, and it ISN'T because doctors' time is in short supply.

No.. generally the offices expand hours and pay extra time..

But there's a reason that prices fall in the face of increased demand, and it ISN'T because doctors' time is in short supply.

Yep..

jaeger19 · Jan 20, 2017

Critter7r said:
If Trump fires 20% of the federal workforce tomorrow, the economy will have no choice but to react negatively.

Right, because they'll FEEL like their bank account is still receiving paychecks every week and that will translate into the ability to spend money at Target.

No.. it does have a choice. The economy may react positively or not react at all depending on how it feels.

Right, because they'll FEEL like their bank account is still receiving paychecks every week and that will translate into the ability to spend money at Target.

that's right.. most of the people in the country will feel that way. If the people feel that trump cutting those jobs will equal better pay... if employers give pay raises thinking (won't have an increase in taxes next year). etc. it might have no effect or a positive effect.

Critter7r · Jan 20, 2017

jaeger19 said:
No.. generally the offices expand hours and pay extra time..

So you're saying there's not a shortage of time.

I'm so glad we agree.

jaeger19 · Jan 20, 2017

Critter7r said:
So you're saying there's not a shortage of time.

I'm so glad we agree.

Okayyyyy?

Critter7r · Jan 20, 2017

jaeger19 said:
Okayyyyy?

if there's no shortage of supply of doctors' time, but there's increased demand of their time, then the lowering of prices is not going against any normal pricing models. It's not "an increase in demand in the face of a shortage of doctors", it's just an increase in demand without a corresponding shortage. And since it's low-hanging fruit for the doctors (cash payments, no insurance billing, short visits), they fight for the business by lowering prices.

Master PO · Jan 21, 2017

austrianecon said:
Actually this is very true. I am a big advocate in modernizing US infrastructure which include high speed rail and local mass transit in top 20 cities in the US.

actually i was laughing at the education part

people who preach debt does not matter are putting forth the idea that government can spend on the social welfare state and also provide for the entitlement state indefinitely.

Moderate Right · Jan 22, 2017

Incisor said:
The Federal Debt has little-to-no impact on the economy. Unlike personal debt, federal debt does not need to be paid back. The only thing federal debt affects is borrowing rates for the government, and even with debt as high as it is, borrowing rates are low. Now is the time to borrow to rebuild infrastructure or upgrade our power grid.

If it doesn't need to be paid back then why is it a loan and why do we pay interest on the loan?

Moderate Right · Jan 22, 2017

Incisor said:
Greece has been doing your austerity prescriptions since 2010 and it's only made things worse. Also, Greece doesn't have its own currency, which is why it has to rely on creditors. Those creditors made a killing on Greece, by the way. Please don't speak about things of which you have no idea.

That makes no sense whatsoever. Why do we need to reduce spending in one area in order to increase it in another? Why not just raise taxes on the wealthy and corporations who have made a killing during the Obama years? There's over $2.1T of corporate profits sitting in banks in socialist countries in Europe. When are they gonna trickle-down? The answer, of course, is never. Tax cuts were a false promise designed to trick the less bright into redistributing wealth to the top 1%.

Your problem is that you think federal debt and personal debt are analogous. But they're not. Conservatives either know this, and are playing stupid, or they don't and should not be allowed a seat at the table. In theory, the debt of the United States never has to be paid off. Why? Because the United States isn't a person whose life will end, thus leaving creditors in the lurch. Thing is, you people know this, but you pretend you don't for ideological reasons. Why? Because Conservatives are party-before-country. Always.

Greece should have never had such liberal policies that austerity was needed. You are supposed to run your country's finances responsibly so that austerity is never needed. If no one was willing to loan money to Greece anymore then what would they do? It is not mandatory for a lender to throw money down a never ending pit. People and places loan money expecting it to get paid back.

Reverand Paul gives a sermon on the Book of Fiscal Conservatism

Mixed Government advocate