• 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!

Liberals want a recession

LibDave said:
It is entirely possible, though I have no direct evidence to prove it. It is more likely they were just short sighted and the bubble burst when it did merely due to the economic forces. It was inevitable but certainly within the realm of possibility the timing was in some way hastened to occur just prior to election day. Great quote by the way. Jefferson was a genius and a great read.
Click to expand...

Is it possible the Fed Reserve is a kind of private bank?

The Fed reserve chairman can answer to no one

The banks and corporations we bailed out were?


"the banks and corporations that will grow up around(these banks) will deprive the people of all property "

- Jefferson


March 2, 2009: AIG Reported Biggest Corporate Loss in History
Click to expand...

AIG Bailout: Cost, Timeline, Bonuses, Causes, Effects
 
LibDave said:
It is entirely possible, though I have no direct evidence to prove it. It is more likely they were just short sighted and the bubble burst when it did merely due to the economic forces. It was inevitable but certainly within the realm of possibility the timing was in some way hastened to occur just prior to election day. Great quote by the way. Jefferson was a genius and a great read.
Click to expand...

It is entirely possible, though I have no direct evidence to prove it.
Click to expand...

I would think at the very least, if not the politician being pulled by strings, it is for sure our banking system

I'm no expert in this field but it is just common sense
 
Luther said:
I would think at the very least, if not the politician being pulled by strings, it is for sure our banking system

I'm no expert in this field but it is just common sense
Click to expand...

It's always good to consider the possibility there may be nefarious forces at work. But I choose to hold off judgement until there is proof of some kind. There is certainly motive, but no evidence they acted on those motivations.

I once had someone claim the water bottling industry was going out and intentionally polluted the fresh water resources of the entire world so they could then exploit the African markets. Forcing them to pay for bottled water keeping the African continent in poverty.

While this may be an incentive and certainly these bottled water companies are indeed benefiting from the water market. It is more likely they produce bottled water and market forces gravitated them to the market due to the potential profits. Normal profits which they are entitled to for providing a commodity in demand above the cost in resources. Now I'm not saying Evian or other bottlers don't have an incentive, just that unless you can provide some evidence they are purposefully responsible for polluting the rivers of the world you shouldn't accuse them of such disreputable practices.

It is the job of a free and fair press to investigate such conspiracy theories. Something we are sadly lacking for the most part.
 
Last edited:
Our process (and I believe it is the correct one) is to have editorial Journalist express their OPINION as to some conspiracy theory. Hopefully they derive their theory devoid of any bias. Sadly currently nowhere near the case. Editorial journalists should clearly indicate this is merely conjecture and opinion. As such they are not held to the stricter standards of journalism. It's just opinion and it's worth is based solely on the strength of their argument.

Then journalists so inclined go out and devoid of bias attempt to prove or disprove the conspiracy, holding off judgement until they have conclusive facts one way or the other. They then notify the public and provide their evidence to the appropriate authorities. This then brings about a criminal investigation with it's own set of strict standards to ensure fairness.

Unfortunately this process was entirely subverted in regards to the corruption of the Clinton campaign in regards to the Russia Collusion Witch Hunt. The evidence of which ironically was brought about by the witch hunt itself.
 
LibDave said:
You might agree more if you appreciated the fact we are better served to allow them to keep what they earn and spend it according to their wishes than to have it confiscated and spent by the government. If you read my post about the street urchin, really consider your response and come to the correct conclusion you will understand why.
Click to expand...

They squirrel away their cash in offshore tax-free havens, so the government gets but a fraction back in tax. Not much of it gets spent in America so the US economy doesn't benefit.
 
Mycroft said:
To answer your question, only the stupid liberals...like the two you mentioned...will come right out and say they hope we have a recession. The non-stupid ones do it differently. They will say, "Of course, we don't want a recession." But then they'll turn around, make up **** to justify their prediction of a recession...and then blame Trump for it. (even though it hasn't happened, won't happen and even though the facts show that the economy is doing great)

These non-stupid liberals are much more dangerous than the stupid liberals.
Click to expand...

We always have a correction after the sugar rush from a big tax cut wears off.

How much the trade wars will amplify it remains to be seen.
 
What if...? said:
We always have a correction after the sugar rush from a big tax cut wears off.

How much the trade wars will amplify it remains to be seen.
Click to expand...

In large part we have yet to enjoy much of the benefits from the tax cuts. These begin to be seen 6 months to a year after they go into effect and continue for as long as they remain in effect. It is the trade wars which brought about the immediate improvements seen to date during the Trump administration they are immediate. Something I didn't fully appreciate until I saw Trump fulfill what I thought was an empty campaign promise. Specifically the return of massive amounts of capital which resulted from years of almost subversive trade policy.
 
LibDave said:
Wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong! Basic economics says nothing of the sort. Keynesian economics claims that and it has been thoroughly debunked. Even Keynes acknowledged it was a fallacy before his death.
Click to expand...

Can you show us any links on this from a credible source?
 
LibDave said:
In large part we have yet to enjoy much of the benefits from the tax cuts. These begin to be seen 6 months to a year after they go into effect and continue for as long as they remain in effect. It is the trade wars which brought about the immediate improvements seen to date during the Trump administration they are immediate. Something I didn't fully appreciate until I saw Trump fulfill what I thought was an empty campaign promise. Specifically the return of massive amounts of capital which resulted from years of almost subversive trade policy.
Click to expand...
They went into effect 1 January 2018.

They are not cuts so much as reform. Far from lining pockets of the very rich, it simply leveled the import/export playing field with other nations. The reform made it easier to be cost competitive and the result has been a sharp increase in exports. That has been what has driven the economy to back to back quarters above expectations. The downside is that this part of the economy is not sheltered from the mess in Europe. When even Germany is having problems, the EU is in bad shape. The domestic side of our economy is more insulated from their downturn.
 
It is important to understand what Trump has done. Capital moving into China and other locations does so based on the potential for future profits. When Trump haphazardly said we need to renegotiate our trade deals and they refused he merely stated, "Well I guess I will just have to raise tariffs by 50% on Chinese goods. If that doesn't motivate them to come to a fair agreement without such huge trade deficits and theft of technology and cyber espionage we might even double or triple that."

Now what capital investor is going to move their capital to China with that kind of rhetoric ongoing? Even if I was 1 hour away from following through on a long thought out capital investment in lets say a factory I am going to do an immediate about-face and say lets hold our horses. Lets reconsider this until we can ascertain what the future economic situation holds. Trump was able to accomplish what was thought impossible at almost no cost whatsoever. Just by planting the seeds of what may be to come the entire landscape was changed and capital began to return to the US and our allies in many cases. You see the effect is immediate and Trump created a bargaining tool out of thin air no one knew existed. In so doing he fulfilled a campaign promise Obama described as a "fictional magic wand". Obama looks like a fool in retrospect (though I must admit I too thought it a hollow campaign promise). Trump is indeed a financial genius and a master of the art of the deal.

Now the Chinese have no choice but to renegotiate. And they must do so in haste. Every day they waste is another day other more scrupulous trading partners are moving in and supplying the goods created by the trade war vacuum. The longer they wait the worse it will be for them. At some point we can just cut off all trade negotiations and ignore the Chinese altogether once their supply of goods and their market share is entirely unnecessary and taken over by trading partners with good intentions. So they must come to a fair deal and it would be wise for them to do so quickly. They are acting like a petulant child who doesn't want to give back the toy they stole and had no claim to begin with.
 
ataraxia said:
Can you show us any links on this from a credible source?
Click to expand...

It isn't necessary. Your statement was literally a text book definition of Keynesian economics. I suspect you either quoted it from text of the definition of Keynesian economics or you just rattled it off from memory from some past reading of the same. Keynesian economics was accepted as a practical means of addressing business cycles many many years ago. Keynes was in fact a very important figure in the science of economics. Much of what we speak of when we discuss economics can be attributed to Keynes. The inflation rate, unemployment rate, employment rate, GDP, Debt to GDP, it goes on and on were all data tools invented by Keynes. Ironically it is these same data tools which eventually led to the dismissal of the economic policies he professed. These data tools were used to prove mathematically the invalidity of the axioms Keynes used to develop his economic philosophy. Hayek was awarded the Nobel prize for doing just that and is correctly credited with predicting the economic outcome in the 1970's which resulted from years of dogmatic adherence to Keynesian economics.

Many modern economists have picked up the pieces and further expanded on our modern understanding of economics. Freidmann and Sowell notable among many others. I suggest you read them if you are so inclined. Though an in-depth understanding of economics requires a thorough understanding of mathematics. Hazlitt and Sowell in particular are very proficient at taking what is naturally very mathematical in nature and breaking it down to a layman's perspective.
 
What if...? said:
We always have a correction after the sugar rush from a big tax cut wears off.

How much the trade wars will amplify it remains to be seen.
Click to expand...

Well, let me know when it happens. Despite a couple years of doom and gloom predictions, it hasn't happened yet.
 
LibDave said:
It isn't necessary. Your statement was literally a text book definition of Keynesian economics. I suspect you either quoted it from text of the definition of Keynesian economics or you just rattled it off from memory from some past reading of the same. Keynesian economics was accepted as a practical means of addressing business cycles many many years ago. Keynes was in fact a very important figure in the science of economics. Much of what we speak of when we discuss economics can be attributed to Keynes. The inflation rate, unemployment rate, employment rate, GDP, Debt to GDP, it goes on and on were all data tools invented by Keynes. Ironically it is these same data tools which eventually led to the dismissal of the economic policies he professed. These data tools were used to prove mathematically the invalidity of the axioms Keynes used to develop his economic philosophy. Hayek was awarded the Nobel prize for doing just that and is correctly credited with predicting the economic outcome in the 1970's which resulted from years of dogmatic adherence to Keynesian economics.

Many modern economists have picked up the pieces and further expanded on our modern understanding of economics. Freidmann and Sowell notable among many others. I suggest you read them if you are so inclined. Though an in-depth understanding of economics requires a thorough understanding of mathematics. Hazlitt and Sowell in particular are very proficient at taking what is naturally very mathematical in nature and breaking it down to a layman's perspective.
Click to expand...

No I was asking for a link showing that Keynesian economics has been debunked. I was not aware.
 
I think it is also important to understand the nature of Trade and in what manner and to what extent nations benefit. Trade is not a benefit in and of itself. For a classic and simple analogy which highlights Trade affects consider the following example taken from Thomas Sowell. If you would like a more complete discussion read Sowell-Basic Economics.

Trade can be broken down into two categories. Absolute advantage and comparative advantage. Absolute advantage is a situation such as banana production or coffee production. Tropical nations have an absolute advantage in the production of bananas over Canada. It just costs too many resources to attempt to produce bananas in Canada for obvious reasons. So it makes no sense but for Canada to purchase bananas from the tropics at a price which is favorable compared to the cost of growing bananas in Canada. Coffee in particular has very specific growing conditions which result in Columbia, Brazil and Vietnam maintaining a drastic Absolute Advantage.

But the more frequent situation involves comparative advantage. Take the following table as a hypothetical situation whose analogy is entirely relevant.

Products American Workers American Output Canadian Workers Canadian Output
chairs 200 100,000 200 90,000
TV sets 300 60,000 300 30,000

At first glance one might think Canada cannot compete with America and would be ill-advised to trade with the US. But if you look closer you find....

Prior to trade commencing both countries combine to produce 190,000 chairs and 90,000 TV sets. After trade commences in which each nations comparative advantages are taken into account we end up perhaps with the following...

Products American Workers American Output Canadian Workers Canadian Output
chairs 0 0 500 225,000
TV sets 500 100,000 0 0

It is clearly shown that after trade commences 225,000 chairs and 100,000 TV sets are produced for the same cost of limited resources. The net benefit available for distribution to the populace of Canada and America is 10,000 TV Sets and 35,000 chairs. Now there are other higher process factors which will determine the exact ratio of chairs and TV sets produced such as perhaps there is no demand for this many chairs causing the price to drop lessening the benefit. This isn't important for our understanding of the nature in which trade benefits trading partners. What we can take from this is that for the most part trade benefits us through comparative advantages and those benefits can be advantaged by both countries even if everything produced by one nation can be done cheaper than in less developed nations. One can in fact develop equations (already done) which can determine the benefits of Trade based solely on the knowledge of the comparative cost of production of the goods traded at the outset. This benefit is not without limit. I you commence trade with the expectation the equations indicate a 7% benefit in the amount of goods produced and you actually end up with a trade deal so one-sided they end up taking 10% in benefits, manipulate their currency, steal your economic technology and commit military cyber warfare against you with the proceeds of that trade (sound familiar) then the benefits gained through comparative advantage end up being overridden through unfair trade practices. This has definitely been the outcome of Chinese American trade relations. We must be careful not to enter into trade for trades sake assuming the laws of economics will result in our favor. The benefits of comparative advantage are normally a small percentage for equally developed nations and not much higher when comparative advantages are pronounced. This can easily be overcome through government intervention in the markets. Therefore it is critical we have astute trade negotiators and prevent political interests from corrupting the process.

It also has a more important impact relating to the humanitarian problems in regards to the subjugation of the Chinese people by their government.
 
Outlook said:
Are the liberals so scared that Trump is going to be re-elected, they want to see the US economy to collapse?
No media bias here, but NBC reporter Richard Engel and idiot Bill Maher want people to loss their jobs and have businesses close if it defeats Trump. They don’t care, they make millions a year.
These two idiots on Friday said they hoped an economic recession would happen in the US so Trump would not be re-elected.
Instead of wishing for a recession try going to the ballet box and vote him out of power if he is so horrible.
Click to expand...

There is a hard push in today's media to establish the narrative that, for example, those 4 congress critters known as "the Squad" are the face of today's democrats but most logical folks are smarter than that. Now we can add the crazy idea that ALL democrats want the economy to fail, and suffer personal financial loss, if it means beating Trump. And, again, most logical folks are smarter than that as well.

I have long held the belief that the market's going to do what the market's going to do and the sitting president at the time really doesn't have much say about it. That means if it's good, they get no credit for it and if it's bad they get no blame. (But that was before I witnessed a sitting president seem to take hold of the market using daily tweets.) But the reality is that the partisan will praise their guy when it's good and blame the other guy when it's bad. No new news here.

Many folks will tell you that Trump is riding the good wave left to him when Obama passed off the golden baton to him. Others blame Obama for just about everything from fish bones to plantar warts. We can't escape the political propaganda that comes from either side. It's been that way forever. But we can realize it for what it is. Down home we used to call it bull****.

If you are crazy enough to believe the democrats want the economy to collapse to defeat Trump, I think you are just in the early stages of setting up your excuses for when Trump does get kicked to the curve. I see through that. The democrats don't need the economy to collapse to beat Trump. All they gotta do is get off their ass and go vote. There's a LOT more people who want to get rid of Trump than there are wanting to keep him.
 
Last edited:
ataraxia said:
No I was asking for a link showing that Keynesian economics has been debunked. I was not aware.
Click to expand...

I posted it earlier but you must have missed it....

"...read Road to serfdom (Von Hayek), Economics in One Lesson (Hazlitt), anything Milton Freidmann, and absolutely EVERYTHING written by Thomas Sowell."

Please understand to quote a single source wouldn't do it justice. It is like claiming "What? Pasteurization reduces diseases? Show me the link!!!!" The sources available are so abundant as to necessitate merely pointing you Google and having you locate sources at whatever level you are so inclined to read.

Nobel prizes are hardly issued to those whose work hasn't been thoroughly vetted. In regards to Hayek's proofs I am certain you wouldn't have the time, inclination, or mathematical background to fully appreciate his work. Milton Friedmann I often also find to be a hard read and my mathematical background is well beyond your average Joe. This is why I suggested Economics in One lesson-Hazlitt, road to Serfdom-Hayek and I especially recommend Sowell. If you weren't aware of a 50 year-old economic revelation it is a pretty good guess this is where you should start. These sources are amazing in the manner in which they simply make undeniably compelling arguments without resorting to graduate level mathematics to get the point across. It will absolutely change your entire understanding of economics and in the process likely alter everything you once held sacred in regards to politicians and the fallacious policies they adopt to twist the truth to garner your vote.

You also shouldn't feel self-conscious about having just realized something you thought so concrete was anything but. Our leadership is hardly ignorant to our current understanding. They are for the most part very well versed in the modern understanding of the science of economics. Unfortunately, they are also well aware many in the public are not and they continue to espouse fallacious rhetoric designed to take advantage of those who aren't yet aware. If you delve further and come to a complete understanding this may in fact infuriate you when you are next confronted with their demagoguery.
 
Last edited:
Jay59 said:
Over $150 Billion/yr is to pay interest on the debt accumulated 2009-2016. One quarter of the deficit is just interest on Obama era debt.

You asked, so there is that.
Click to expand...

It's a good thing Trump is committed to paying down that debt, right?
 
Captain America said:
There is a hard push in today's media to establish the narrative that, for example, those 4 congress critters known as "the Squad" are the face of today's democrats but most logical folks are smarter than that. Now we can add the crazy idea that ALL democrats want the economy to fail, and suffer personal financial loss, if it means beating Trump. And, again, most logical folks are smarter than that as well.

I have long held the belief that the market's going to do what the market's going to do and the sitting president at the time really doesn't have much say about it. That means if it's good, they get no credit for it and if it's bad they get no blame. (But that was before I witnessed a sitting president seem to take hold of the market using daily tweets.) But the reality is that the partisan will praise their guy when it's good and blame the other guy when it's bad. No new news here.

Many folks will tell you that Trump is riding the good wave left to him when Obama passed off the golden baton to him. Others blame Obama for just about everything from fish bones to plantar warts. We can't escape the political propaganda that comes from either side. It's been that way forever. But we can realize it for what it is. Down home we used to call it bull****.

If you are crazy enough to believe the democrats want the economy to collapse to defeat Trump, I think you are just in the early stages of setting up your excuses for when Trump does get kicked to the curve. I see through that. The democrats don't need the economy to collapse to beat Trump. All they gotta do is get off their ass and go vote. There's a LOT more people who want to get rid of Trump than there are wanting to keep him.
Click to expand...

I feel you here, trust me. In these same regards Republicans are accused of wanting to "starve Americans school children" and wanting "grandmothers to eat dog food" and pushing them off cliffs in their wheel chairs.

I prefer not to vilify others solely on their affiliations. I assume we all want the same thing and have good will for all Americans. I will take issue with those who intentionally twist the facts and read into statistics things which aren't really valid. If they base their positions on ill-conceived notions I will correct them on it in a manner I hope leads them to a more thorough understanding of the subject and perhaps those on the other side of an issue.
 
Outlook said:
Are the liberals so scared that Trump is going to be re-elected, they want to see the US economy to collapse?
No media bias here, but NBC reporter Richard Engel and idiot Bill Maher want people to loss their jobs and have businesses close if it defeats Trump. They don’t care, they make millions a year.
These two idiots on Friday said they hoped an economic recession would happen in the US so Trump would not be re-elected.
Instead of wishing for a recession try going to the ballet box and vote him out of power if he is so horrible.
Click to expand...

It's beyond reprehensible that anyone would root for America to fail an for Americans to suffer. Maher is cynical and a traitor. He won't lose his jobs, but others would. You know what happens then? People lose their homes and worse, their dignity. Suicide. Yeah, it happens. But the Left see this collateral damage as just a part of doing business.
 
ataraxia said:
No I was asking for a link showing that Keynesian economics has been debunked. I was not aware.
Click to expand...

By the way Atraxia, I never heard your response to post 242. I would be very interested in your take on it. It is an excellent brain twister which requires some real thought to figure it out based on economics.
 
And for the record, Trump is like that 300 lb. linebacker on your team who runs the 40 in 4 seconds flat and absolutely destroys your opponents. You hate him for his confidence, cruelty, flare, conceit and bravado... but you are damn glad and lucky he is on your team. He is the product of his success. He has acquired FU money in the process, doesn't give a damn about whether you agree with him or not as he is confident in his own assessment. He is used to getting his own way and is downright vicious when he is challenged. All that said he is an absolutely brilliant businessman and a dogged defender of our interests.
 
LibDave said:
A young street Urchin sits outside a bakery eyeing the tasty pastries, pies and various other baked goods. He decides to pick up a brick and throw it through the shop window. He then hastily grabs up the baked goods and runs off down the street gobbling up his ill-gotten gains. The baker runs out onto the sidewalk in horror. He asks the bystanders if they saw the culprit and would help him identify the culprit to the police. The following conversation ensues.

[bystanders] Yes we did see him and know exactly who the culprit is by name. However, we will not assist you by revealing his identity to the police.

[baker] Why not? Do I not deserve justice?

[bystanders] Well the way we see it, you are going to have to replace your window. Therefore the Glaser will have an increase in employment. You will also have to replace all those pastries and as a result purchase more flour from the miller. The miller will need to purchase more wheat from the farmer. You will also have to purchase more sugar from the caner. Not too mention you will likely have to hire on additional labor to help bake all the replacement treats. From our point of view there has been an almost immeasurable good done by this young man in the creation of all this employment. In fact we are considering giving him a public service award. Incidentally, the bystanders represent the public and their assessment correlates to the economic assessment of many in the public in regards to the policies of various elected officials of our day.

The question for you is, "Did the actions of the young street urchin really increase employment?" What is your argument for your response?
Click to expand...

1. The urchin and the bystanders are, in effect, determining what the baker is going to spend his time, money and energy on...instead of allowing the baker to decide for himself. In effect, they are replacing the invisible hand with THEIR hand.

2. If the baker didn't have to spend his time, money and energy on the things determined by the urchin and the bystanders, he could have used those resources to increase his revenue instead of making up for the damage that was done. That increase in revenue would have required all of the same expenditures, except for repairing the broken window.

So, except for the increased employment to the glaser, there was no real increase in employment. The urchin should have just broken the window and be done with it...except, of course, the urchin benefited by being able to eat his ill-gotten gains.

Now...if I were the baker responding to the bystanders, I would ask them if they are giving me their permission to break into their houses and stealing their possessions, since, by their reasoning, that would result in a LOT of increased employment for the whole community.
 
LibDave said:
I don't wish to keep Trump in power for political reasons. I wish him success for partisan reasons. It benefits me. His tactics I admit are very unorthodox and in many ways are quite repugnant. But his policy is sound and the benefits to our nation far outweigh my distaste for the rhetoric. I also acknowledge that while unorthodox, his rhetoric is in many ways responsible for his success.
Click to expand...

I think, shall we say his unorthodox, in your face style helped him distance himself from the other GOP presidential candidates. It made him stand out way beyond all others. I also think his brash persona hurt him some in the general election. But Trump was one lucky SOB in that he ran against Hillary Clinton. Someone more disliked than Trump by independents, someone who had a wet mop personality, ran a ho hum campaign, was lazy, came across as elitist and aloof, among many other things.

I also think Trump's obnoxcious and very unpresidential behavior has hurt him for 2020. That depending on whom the Democrats nominate. Who knows, they may very well nominate another Hillary Clinton or a candidate so far out there from mainstream America Trump is able to pull out another nail bitter. So we'll see what lies ahead. Trump has lost some support among independent due to his uncouth and abrasive personality. So everything depends on whom the Democrats counter with.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom