• 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!

Keynesian stimlulus spending in recessions: does it really work?

What is that supposed to mean? Usually you at least try to make your posts seem plausible. You didn't even try this time. Are you saying that the idiot neighbors are the one percenters? Are you saying that the poor with means live next to the one percenters? Are you saying that the middle incomers actually influence the difference between the poorest and the richest? Are you saying that those with decent jobs move out of their home state because of the one percenters?

I'm saying that the reason blue states have higher income inequality isn't because they have more poor people, it's because they have more rich people. Which should be obvious. Blue states are where the high paying jobs are.
 
Last edited:
I'm saying that the reason blue states have higher income inequality isn't because they have more poor people, it's because they have more rich people. Which should be obvious. Blue states are where the high paying jobs are.

In other words, blue states have more one percenters and more poor, despite being run by Democratic governments. Way to show us how liberalism works.
 
Well, that comes as no surprise since San Francisco, Los Angeles, and New York City are home to many high earners and billionaires...like Trump.

The liberal governments are sure doing a bang up job. They let the rich be super rich and the let the poor be super poor. Way to show us how liberalism works.
 
In other words, blue states have more one percenters and more poor, despite being run by Democratic governments. Way to show us how liberalism works.

No, blue states just have more one percenters - which is better than having less. Nice demonstration of your (lack of) logical thinking skills.

Look at your own state - is anyplace poorer than Kentucky? Mississippi, maybe. West Virginia. Alabammy? You guys could do with some liberal leadership, but your voters seem to be happy living in "squaller," as you put it so brilliantly.
 
No, blue states just have more one percenters - which is better than having less. Nice demonstration of your (lack of) logical thinking skills.

Look at your own state - is anyplace poorer than Kentucky? Mississippi, maybe. West Virginia. Alabammy? You guys could do with some liberal leadership, but your voters seem to be happy living in "squaller," as you put it so brilliantly.

It's you guys who are against the one percenters and income inequality. Now you are bragging that the blue states have more one percenters and more income inequality and don't fault the blue state governments for not doing anything about it. Which side are you on again?
 
It's you guys who are against the one percenters and income inequality. Now you are bragging that the blue states have more one percenters and more income inequality and don't fault the blue state governments for not doing anything about it. Which side are you on again?

The answer to income inequality certainly isn't to model the economy after those of Kentucky, Mississippi, West Virginia, etc., where everybody is broke.

There is nothing wrong with success and high paying jobs. I'm certainly not against that. The cure for income inequality is to raise up the poor, not to eliminate the rich.
 
The answer to income inequality certainly isn't to model the economy after those of Kentucky, Mississippi, West Virginia, etc., where everybody is broke.

There is nothing wrong with success and high paying jobs. I'm certainly not against that. The cure for income inequality is to raise up the poor, not to eliminate the rich.

There is another factor not mentioned here. the big cities are also the destinations of millions of immigrants who by and large are very poor and have a low education/training level.
Doesn't matter what model you go with we ad a couple million very poor annually the income inequality levels wont level out.
 
The answer to income inequality certainly isn't to model the economy after those of Kentucky, Mississippi, West Virginia, etc., where everybody is broke.

There is nothing wrong with success and high paying jobs. I'm certainly not against that. The cure for income inequality is to raise up the poor, not to eliminate the rich.

That's what Republicans want to do but it's you guys who want to tax the hell out of the rich and give it to the poor.
 
The liberal governments are sure doing a bang up job. They let the rich be super rich and the let the poor be super poor. Way to show us how liberalism works.

Must be why more people live in cities and urban areas than in rural America; more opportunity.
 
Must be why more people live in cities and urban areas than in rural America; more opportunity.

More opportunity for income inequality and one percenters to flurish.
 
Within our national and global economies, we have lots of local economies within the US.

Due to reasons of geography, education, technology, density, scale, etc., some local economies will inevitably be less productive and wealthy than others. Large urban areas will naturally have an advantage in that regard, and no one is to blame for that. A small town focused on agriculture, or low to medium-tech manufacturing, just isn't going to be on the same level as NYC, LA, SF, etc. If that correlates with Blue vs Red states, so be it.

But very large wealth inequalities within a local economy are a different matter, and there I would suggest that there's a problem which needs to be addressed.
 
More opportunity for income inequality and one percenters to flurish.

No, just more opportunity. In case you haven't noticed, more and more people live in urban areas than rural areas. It's a trend that will continue and never be reversed.
 
No, just more opportunity. In case you haven't noticed, more and more people live in urban areas than rural areas. It's a trend that will continue and never be reversed.

This is true, and is why cities continue to grow larger. Cities are actually quite efficient per capita, even environmentally.
 
No, just more opportunity. In case you haven't noticed, more and more people live in urban areas than rural areas. It's a trend that will continue and never be reversed.

Just like manufacuring jobs in the US can't be saved? You liberals are so narrow minded. You are losing touch with the average voter and that's why Trump won. Trump also won because of the rural voters. They're not going anywhere, especially to the big cities.
 
Just like manufacuring jobs in the US can't be saved? You liberals are so narrow minded. You are losing touch with the average voter and that's why Trump won. Trump also won because of the rural voters. They're not going anywhere, especially to the big cities.

They can be saved, and it's probably not even desirable for too much shift towards cities. But let's remember that protecting US jobs against fair foreign competition is in opposition to free market thinking and amounts to a form of subsidy for those workers, which raises prices for consumers and increases inflation. IMO, it's not unreasonable to protect some US workers and industries (and their communities and families) in this way, but it sounds more like liberal than conservative ideology to me.
 
They can be saved, and it's probably not even desirable for too much shift towards cities. But let's remember that protecting US jobs against fair foreign competition is in opposition to free market thinking and amounts to a form of subsidy for those workers, which raises prices for consumers and increases inflation. IMO, it's not unreasonable to protect some US workers and industries (and their communities and families) in this way, but it sounds more like liberal than conservative ideology to me.

I'm for protecting US jobs from unfair completion. There's nothing wrong with fair competition.
 
I'm for protecting US jobs from unfair completion. There's nothing wrong with fair competition.

Agreed, though it can be difficult to judge what's fair versus unfair, and there are gray zones.

Also, many other countries have a lower cost of production simply because there's less overall opportunity there, so you have more people competing for lower-end jobs and willing to accept less money to do them. I don't think we can compete with that without some form of protectionism.

Again, I can understand the rationale. Realistically, it's not all that easy for middle-aged people, most of who have families to support, and who've specialized in a particular kind of job for many years, to suddenly start over by retraining for a new kind of job and entering at a relatively low level. But if we're going to help those people with protectionism, I think we need to recognize it for what it is, and accept that there are costs involved for the rest of society. I personally am willing to accept those costs.
 
Not exactly.

GM died. Its bond holders were forced to exchange the debt they owned for equity in the new entity. The "loans" provided to GM by the FedGov were only partially paid back (roughly $12 Billion short). The new GM (without all the excess baggage of GMAC and a few less than profitable divisions) is marginally profitable but it's not exactly setting the world on fire.

The bailout also set a precedent as a "too big to fail" entity. That isn't productive and could well lead to even worse decisions in the future. It's just my opinion, but if the FedGov really wanted to help they'd have allowed GM to crash and then offered some form of loan guarantees to other organizations that came in and cannibalized what was left. Doing so would have afforded the opportunity for a MUCH more diverse and agile auto industry in this nation. We may well have seen a resurgence in the industry akin to what we had in the 40's and 50's.

Of course, we can compare amateur hour analysis to what the experts say....

Note that amateur hour analysis includes some notion that the auto industry, if left to fail, would work its way back in short-order in a time when investment capital was not available.... You have read the amateur analysis, now consider the experts...

The U.S. auto bailout is officially over. Here's what America lost and gained.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...a84725dbf9d_story.html?utm_term=.f1a0e0bc8bee
Forbes Welcome
 
Just like manufacuring jobs in the US can't be saved? You liberals are so narrow minded. You are losing touch with the average voter and that's why Trump won. Trump also won because of the rural voters. They're not going anywhere, especially to the big cities.

I am not quite sure who is being narrow minded here. I am pretty sure that the way things are evolving, holding on to manufacturing jobs is going to hurt the US economy as a whole in the long run. It is going to be very expensive, because it is artificial and forced. It will ultimately hurt evreyone, including the rural voters and workers in manufacturing. Trump may save 800 jobs now in the Carrier plant in Indiana, but if he really pushes systematic policies that will artificially try to keep those jobs here, it will hurt one, or several, or even all of the following parties: the workers, the manufacturers, investors, Wall Street, taxpayers, etc... It is going against what the market is demanding. It is swimming upstream.

"Trump and Bernie Sanders blame China for undercutting American workers with cheap labor (even Trump makes a lot of his suits and ties overseas). But there's another big factor: technology. Robots and machines are also replacing workers. The tech trend would have happened regardless of trade.

Still, manufacturing remains a key part of the U.S. economy. Over 12.3 million Americans are employed in the industry. But it's not the powerhouse it was...

Trade likely sped up the shift, but many experts say it was inevitable. It's unlikely many manufacturing jobs will ever return, even if Trump's walls get built.

"Trump's talk on trade is bluster," says economist Charles Ballard of Michigan State University. "Even if you did [what Trump says], you wouldn't reverse the technology, which is a very big part of the picture."

Trump's threat to put hefty taxes on Chinese and Mexican goods coming into the country would likely to sink the economy into a recession. It would make many items at the store more expensive for working class Americans and spark a global trade war.

The U.S. tried this tactic in the 1930s with a law known as Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act. It backfired, pulling the U.S. further into the Great Depression...

Unemployment in the U.S. is low again because people have found work despite the manufacturing jobs disappearing.

The jobs former manufacturing workers have moved into -- health care, construction and retail -- also vary greatly in pay, benefits and quality.

"Certain industries have declined and others have risen," says Harvard professor and trade expert Robert Lawrence. "In aggregate, the economy is close to full employment." "

U.S. has lost 5 million manufacturing jobs since 2000 - Mar. 29, 2016
____________________
But the folks supporting Trump are not the college educated types. They just see two feet in front of them, not the big picture. These policies may seem penny wise to them, but they are pound foolish. Their election of Trump is tantamount to just shooting themselves in the foot out of frustration. It's only going to make things worse for them. And the problem is that the effects of a Trump presidency are going to be catastrophic for them not necessarily next month, or next year, or even 4 years from now. It will really start to hit them 10, 20, 30 years from now. But hey, I am sure that there will be some Democrat sap around somewhere that they can blame all the pain on then.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom