• 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!

Reverand Paul gives a sermon on the Book of Fiscal Conservatism

JohnfrmClevelan said:
Currency holds value when it can buy stuff. Any other explanation is just a derivative of "being able to buy stuff." Production is the "tangible exchange." And if you like gold better, feel free to buy gold with your dollars. It's not difficult.

Why would people lose confidence? Because there is nothing on the shelves to buy with their dollars. And bonds are just a temporary way to store dollars. Bonds hold their value because the dollars they are storing can still buy stuff. Bonds hold their value because dollars hold their value, and dollars hold their value because our economy produces a lot of stuff to buy.
Click to expand...

That's patently false John.

People don't lose confidence "because their is nothing on the shelves to buy with their dollars"....

They lose confidence that people won't accept those dollars for the things on the shelves....
 
jaeger19 said:
Yep... which means that debt does matter.
Click to expand...

No, it just means that the economy cannot handle unlimited demand. That has always been the limit of how much the government can spend - can the economy meet the increased demand? I've explained that a hundred times already. Taxation is a means of decreasing private sector demand. If the government spent without taxing anything away from people, the economy might not be able to meet all of that demand. Debt has nothing to do with it.
 
jaeger19 said:
That's patently false John.

People don't lose confidence "because their is nothing on the shelves to buy with their dollars"....

They lose confidence that people won't accept those dollars for the things on the shelves....
Click to expand...

Currencies lose value when their economies don't produce enough. The whole "confidence" argument is baloney, at least at the start. Months or years into hyperinflation, sure, people are not going to have confidence in the currency, and for good reason. But currencies lose value for real, economic reasons, not because of the Confidence Fairy.

Look at any incidence of hyperinflation. You can trace every one of them to a solid, logical reason or reasons. Lack of confidence is not a cause, it is a result. It's an easy explanation used by people who are too lazy or simply unable to figure out the real reason(s) for inflation.
 
JohnfrmClevelan said:
No, it just means that the economy cannot handle unlimited demand. That has always been the limit of how much the government can spend - can the economy meet the increased demand? I've explained that a hundred times already. Taxation is a means of decreasing private sector demand. If the government spent without taxing anything away from people, the economy might not be able to meet all of that demand. Debt has nothing to do with it.
Click to expand...

Yeah.... again false. You keep explaining it and you keep failing because its simply not true. We have inflation now... yet we are well away from full production. Your premise doesn't explain that.

And "taxation as a means of decreasing private sector demand".

What a load of crap john. Crap man... 5 minutes from now you will be arguing that taxation increases private demand... the minute that argument suits your purpose. Because that's what you have argued in the past.

Lets see... next it will be "taxation increases private sector demand by transferring money that would go into peoples savings and puts it back out into the economy in government wages, etc... that increase demand".

Come on man.
 
JohnfrmClevelan said:
Currencies lose value when their economies don't produce enough. The whole "confidence" argument is baloney, at least at the start. Months or years into hyperinflation, sure, people are not going to have confidence in the currency, and for good reason. But currencies lose value for real, economic reasons, not because of the Confidence Fairy.

Look at any incidence of hyperinflation. You can trace every one of them to a solid, logical reason or reasons. Lack of confidence is not a cause, it is a result. It's an easy explanation used by people who are too lazy or simply unable to figure out the real reason(s) for inflation.
Click to expand...

currencies lose value when people don't have faith in the ability of those currencies to buy things. The whole confidence is completely true. Especially now that currency is not based on anything tangible and useful.

The "confidence fairy" as you call it is a REAL ECONOMIC FACTOR. In fact.. its what economics is about.... peoples behavior. Not.. accounting identities as you seem to think it is.

When you are looking back at incidence of hyperinflation John... your are seeing the reasons that people LOST CONFIDENCE. Lack of confidence is what results in hyperinflation.

Thinking that economics is about accounting and not about human behavior.. is something used by people that well... either want to push and agenda.. or well have no clue about economics.
 
Incisor said:
Yes, because Conservatives wouldn't agree to revenue increases. Hard to see how cutting spending in any regard helps the economy.
Click to expand...

Which still does not refute my point.

I think it's obvious he meant that Bush added $6T to the debt. And yes, he was handed trillion-dollar deficits and an economy that was falling apart. He recovered the economy without one single Republican vote. Why? Because Conservatives are party-before-country. Always.
Click to expand...

I know what was meant. I was merely pointing out that if someone doesn't know the difference between those two things, then it makes it hard to take the rest very seriously. As for your numbers, they are off.

https://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo5.htm

As for the deficit...they were find under Bush until the recession hit and that wasn't something caused by Bush.

US Federal Deficit by Year - plus charts and analysis

It was $161 billion in 2007, $458 billion in 2008, and then $1,414 billion in 2009.
 
jaeger19 said:
yet we are well away from full production.
Click to expand...

There isn't a true measurement of full production just as there isn't a definitive measure of full employment. I see you've become reliant on capacity utilization data to push your argument, but what does it really tell us? It provides a glimpse into how much (based on value) firms think they can produce given their existing capital structure, necessarily in manufacturing facilities. It does not however measure service capacity, which is extremely difficult to ascertain, and services make up the bulk of U.S. production. Furthermore, CU data is heavily dependent upon how firms value their production.

As a side note, arguing that industry doesn't utilize total capacity is actually an argument against the economic efficiency of capitalism, such that, rent seeking through profit maximization principles account for malinvestment as well as foregone production.

"taxation increases private sector demand by transferring money that would go into peoples savings and puts it back out into the economy in government wages, etc... that increase demand".
Click to expand...

It certainly is valid that taxing those with extremely high rates of savings, and then spending that money into the economy via redistribution nets a multiplier that far exceeds the economic impact of said savings.
 
Last edited:
Fishking said:
As for the deficit...they were find under Bush until the recession hit and that wasn't something caused by Bush.
Click to expand...

Two things:

1. Bush set four record deficits during his time in office, erasing a surplus and doubling the debt through trickle-down policies. In the first four years of his term, GDP growth was the worst since the Great Depression, 811,000 private sector jobs were lost, the surplus was erased, and two of those four record-breaking deficits appeared (2003: $377B deficit, 2004: $412B deficit). The only growth Bush had during his eight years was the result of the mortgage bubble he inflated beginning in 2004...which brings me to...

2. Please take a look at the chart below, and you tell me how Bush wasn't responsible for the sudden and immediate increase in subprime lending beginning in 2004:

BBB5_Subprime_Mortgage_origination.jpg

Bonus points: 2003-2007 was the period that Conservatives controlled all three branches of government. Coincidence that it happened to be the same period of time of explosive subprime growth? I don't believe in coincidences. Bush's regulators stopped enforcing lending standards in 2004, which led to subprime loans that had "dramatically weakened" standards beginning in 2004. Regulators work for the Executive branch. Who runs the Executive branch? POTUS.


It was $161 billion in 2007, $458 billion in 2008, and then $1,414 billion in 2009.
Click to expand...

Two of those were record-highs. And why don't you include 2001-2006?
 
jaeger19 said:
currencies lose value when people don't have faith in the ability of those currencies to buy things. The whole confidence is completely true. Especially now that currency is not based on anything tangible and useful.
Click to expand...

You and a friend walk into WalMart with $20 each. You have confidence in the dollar, and he does not. Can you buy the same stuff with your $20 bills? Does WalMart raise it's prices when they see that your friend has no confidence in his twenty dollars?

jaeger19 said:
The "confidence fairy" as you call it is a REAL ECONOMIC FACTOR. In fact.. its what economics is about.... peoples behavior. Not.. accounting identities as you seem to think it is.

When you are looking back at incidence of hyperinflation John... your are seeing the reasons that people LOST CONFIDENCE. Lack of confidence is what results in hyperinflation.
Click to expand...

Do you see the circularity in your argument? In the same breath, you claim that a loss of confidence is why hyperinflation happens, AND that their lost confidence is caused by the economic REASONS that I was talking about. Face it, people don't just up and decide that their currency is worthless WITHOUT A REASON. Loss of confidence is a reaction to real reasons.

jaeger19 said:
Thinking that economics is about accounting and not about human behavior.. is something used by people that well... either want to push and agenda.. or well have no clue about economics.
Click to expand...

And I suppose that thinking that economics is all about human behavior, and not about numbers, money, and debt - that's the way to go, and has no agenda? Your way is not severely lacking in any way because you can't explain the mechanics behind everything? The economy is great simply because people have confidence in it, and nothing - no shortage of resources, or skewed distribution of our means of conducting business - can alter that outcome?
 
Last edited:
Incisor said:
Two things:

1. Bush set four record deficits during his time in office, erasing a surplus and doubling the debt through trickle-down policies. In the first four years of his term, GDP growth was the worst since the Great Depression, 811,000 private sector jobs were lost, the surplus was erased, and two of those four record-breaking deficits appeared (2003: $377B deficit, 2004: $412B deficit). The only growth Bush had during his eight years was the result of the mortgage bubble he inflated beginning in 2004...which brings me to...?
Click to expand...

Don't have time to get into this further but not having context and ignoring other variables is a weak tactic.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dot-com_bubble

And, in case you missed it, we also had this as well.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11_attacks

So...yeah...the point falls very flat.
 
Fishking said:
Don't have time to get into this further but not having context and ignoring other variables is a weak tactic.
Click to expand...

So why are you employing it? The dotcom bubble burst before Bush was even inaugurated. The slight recession in 2001 didn't even result in negative growth for that year (1.9% growth in 2001). Furthermore, you know what caused the dotcom bubble? Take a wild guess...no idea? TAX CUTS!


And, in case you missed it, we also had this as well.
Click to expand...

BS. 9/11 wasn't the reason Bush's growth during his first four years was so terrible. The stock market recovered all its losses by November of 2001. So you can't use 9/11 as an excuse. BTW - wasn't Bush the one saying that the best way to fight terrorists is to buy things in the consumer economy??? How exactly did 9/11 result in 4 years of poor economic growth when all the losses suffered on 9/11 were recovered less than two months later??


So...yeah...the point falls very flat.
Click to expand...

Your point does, yes. Because you're trying to make excuses for 4 years of poor growth through things that had no bearing on it.
 
Fishking said:
That's not factually true. I mean, you're not even getting the difference between deficit and debt correct.
Click to expand...
first FK, thank you for pointing out that I used "deficit" incorrectly. Yes, I meant "debt". Now you say its "not factually true". Seems like a rather wordy alternative to "false" and "not true". So I'm a little curious if you have some "secret meaning" in there. Anyhoo, let me show you why what I've posted is "factually true". Lets look at the links you posted.
Fishking said:
https://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo5.htm

US Federal Deficit by Year - plus charts and analysis
Click to expand...

Open the second link and scroll down to “recent federal deficits FY 2006 to FY 2016.” See that big scary jump in 2009. Quite a jump. You and yours were shown that quite regularly to prove “Obama bad” or “Obama spend too much”. Open the first link. That’s actually from the Treasury dept. To get that 1.4 trillion number you have to subtract the number on 9/30/2008 from the number on 9/30/2009. Yes, that 1.4 trillion dollar deficit started 10/1/2008. That’s why you are always shown the bar chart. It glosses over the fact that FY 2009 was Bush's last budget.

Bush’s first budget started 10/1/2001 and his last ended one ended 9/30/2009 (that's where the 6 trillion added to the debt comes from). If you look at the CBO Budget Outlook from Jan 7 2009, you’ll see Bush’s last budget deficit was revised up to 1.2 trillion. Yes that’s before President Obama took over. Here’s a handy chart of Bush’s last fiscal year starting with his budget request and estimated revenues.
FY 2009_______________
Date of estimate___2/1/08___1/7/09___actuals
Total Revenues___2,817___2,357__ 2,105
Total Outlays____3,100___3,543___ 3,518

You hold Bush blameless for a recession that started 7 years into his presidency but hold President Obama accountable for the trillion dollar deficits he inherited. How does that make sense to you?
 
Kushinator said:
There isn't a true measurement of full production just as there isn't a definitive measure of full employment. I see you've become reliant on capacity utilization data to push your argument, but what does it really tell us? It provides a glimpse into how much (based on value) firms think they can produce given their existing capital structure, necessarily in manufacturing facilities. It does not however measure service capacity, which is extremely difficult to ascertain, and services make up the bulk of U.S. production. Furthermore, CU data is heavily dependent upon how firms value their production.

As a side note, arguing that industry doesn't utilize total capacity is actually an argument against the economic efficiency of capitalism, such that, rent seeking through profit maximization principles account for malinvestment as well as foregone production.



It certainly is valid that taxing those with extremely high rates of savings, and then spending that money into the economy via redistribution nets a multiplier that far exceeds the economic impact of said savings.
Click to expand...


Oh come on. You just want to argue to argue. its an eqo thing with you.

1. I use capacity utilization data because JOHN keeps arguing about full production. That's what he uses in his premise so its what I use to refute it. We aren't at full production capacity.. and yet we have inflation. His premise is done.

now.. much of what you say regarding definitions of full employment and capacity utilization is true. Don't really care since its not my argument.

Now.. if you want to argue that we ARE at full production capacity and could not produce any more... well then... I would be interested in hearing your rationale. But somehow.. I don't think that's your intent.

It certainly is valid that taxing those with extremely high rates of savings, and then spending that money into the economy via redistribution nets a multiplier that far exceeds the economic impact of said savings.
Click to expand...

Depending on who you tax and where you spend that money in the economy then yes.

If you tax 1000 people and take money out of what they would spend.. (even with high savings rate) and spend it say on a tax credit to one fellow with a high savings rate.. then there is no multiplier.
 
JohnfrmClevelan said:
You and a friend walk into WalMart with $20 each. You have confidence in the dollar, and he does not. Can you buy the same stuff with your $20 bills? Does WalMart raise it's prices when they see that your friend has no confidence in his twenty dollars?
?
Click to expand...

See john.. this is why you don't get it. In your scenario.. Me and my friend aren't the ones that have to have confidence in that dollar. The owner of walmart is the one that has to have confidence in that dollar. and if he lacks confidence in the value of that dollar, we may find that we can only buy a stick of gum with the 20 dollars.

Do you see the circularity in your argument? In the same breath, you claim that a loss of confidence is why hyperinflation happens, AND that their lost confidence is caused by the economic REASONS that I was talking about. Face it, people don't just up and decide that their currency is worthless WITHOUT A REASON. Loss of confidence is a reaction to real reasons.
Click to expand...

You don't seem to understand reality. People lose confidence in the economy and in dollars because of what they perceive. Heck... look at what happened to the market the night Trump got elected. Now.. that was a real event.. no doubt. BUT was it real in the sense that Trump actually did something to hurt the economy? No. but yet the market reacted rather strongly.. then the next day the market reacted almost as strongly in the reverse

in fact.. We put protections on the markets that stop sudden losses in peoples confidence.. and on banks (like FDIC).

Yes... to a considerable degree.. our economy is great because people have confidence in it. that's why things like "consumer confidence" are such a valued metric.

Certainly things like shortage of resources etc.. have an effect on that confidence. but its what people FEEL about that shortage or surplus that matters a good deal.
 
jaeger19 said:
Oh come on. You just want to argue to argue. its an eqo thing with you.
Click to expand...

It is a matter of both accuracy and validity.

I use capacity utilization data because JOHN keeps arguing about full production. That's what he uses in his premise so its what I use to refute it. We aren't at full production capacity.. and yet we have inflation. His premise is done.
Click to expand...

Capacity utilization is a subjective data set that fails to capture the entire economy. Inflation on the other hand occurs when income growth exceeds productivity growth.

Now.. if you want to argue that we ARE at full production capacity and could not produce any more... well then... I would be interested in hearing your rationale. But somehow.. I don't think that's your intent.
Click to expand...

Productive capacity is better interpreted through movements in prices, employment, interest rates, and productivity. My intent is providing the rest of the forum with objective accuracy, while correcting for those who pursue anything less.

Depending on who you tax and where you spend that money in the economy then yes.

If you tax 1000 people and take money out of what they would spend.. (even with high savings rate) and spend it say on a tax credit to one fellow with a high savings rate.. then there is no multiplier.
Click to expand...

But this isn't representative of the statement you've chosen to reply, nor is it logically consistent. On the aggregate, high savings rates are a function of income. While it is certainly a possibility for people in lower income thresholds to save, it just isn't an accurate representation of the economy. Taxing those with high savings rates (high income earners) and redistributing it to lower income households is very much stimulative, as it doesn't cannabilize economic activity from taxation and is going to be spent, thereby leading to a significant multiplier. This is why food stamps provided the greatest fiscal multiplier.
 
jaeger19 said:
The owner of walmart is the one that has to have confidence in that dollar. and if he lacks confidence in the value of that dollar, we may find that we can only buy a stick of gum with the 20 dollars.
Click to expand...

This doesn't follow economic logic, nor have you attempted to explain how it could be so.

People lose confidence in the economy and in dollars because of what they perceive. Heck... look at what happened to the market the night Trump got elected. Now.. that was a real event.. no doubt. BUT was it real in the sense that Trump actually did something to hurt the economy? No. but yet the market reacted rather strongly.. then the next day the market reacted almost as strongly in the reverse
Click to expand...

Short term stock market fluctuations are not representative of the real economy. It is overwhelmingly automated to react to variables and subsequent reactions to variables.

We put protections on the markets that stop sudden losses in peoples confidence
Click to expand...

Circuit breakers are there to prevent breakdowns in automation from impacting overall market volatility.

and on banks (like FDIC).
Click to expand...

FDIC doesn't prevent bank failures, but has eliminated the instances of bank runs. A bank run occurs when depositors feel their banks will not be able to both honor their accounts on demand.

Yes... to a considerable degree.. our economy is great because people have confidence in it. that's why things like "consumer confidence" are such a valued metric.

Certainly things like shortage of resources etc.. have an effect on that confidence. but its what people FEEL about that shortage or surplus that matters a good deal.
Click to expand...

You are missing the boat here... it isn't what people feel but why they feel it. Why do people rush to sell stock? Why do people feel their deposits are not going to be honored? Why do firms feel their sales will lag? Why do firms feel their credit will be called?

Why is what matters.:2razz: What (confidence or lack thereof) is just the consequence of why.
 
Kushinator said:
This doesn't follow economic logic, nor have you attempted to explain how it could be so.

.
Click to expand...

How does it not "follow economic logic"?????? You mean that a seller of an service or product has no concern about the value of what he is exchanging his service or product for?

Short term stock market fluctuations are not representative of the real economy. It is overwhelmingly automated to react to variables and subsequent reactions to variables.
Click to expand...

They are an easy example of peoples behavior when they suffer lack of confidence or overconfidence. Most of the time.. peoples beliefs are much more subtle and complicated by multiple issues... which is why consumer confidence is computed.

Circuit breakers are there to prevent breakdowns in automation from impacting overall market volatility.
Click to expand...

Yeah no.. a circuit breaker depends on the level the S and P 500 drops. its not triggered by a "breakdown in automation".

though certainly automation and the increased speed at which trades occur is why the market needs a breather.

After 1929.. they reduced the number of trading days from 6 to 5 to let markets recover in a panic in an effort to do approximately the same thing..

FDIC doesn't prevent bank failures, but has eliminated the instances of bank runs. A bank run occurs when depositors feel their banks will not be able to both honor their accounts on demand.
Click to expand...

You mean people will make a run on a bank because they FEEL? Say it isn't so Kush.

You are missing the boat here... it isn't what people feel but why they feel it. Why do people rush to sell stock? Why do people feel their deposits are not going to be honored? Why do firms feel their sales will lag? Why do firms feel their credit will be called?
Click to expand...

your missing the boat here. It is WHAT people feel.... that triggers the behavior. Its WHAT they feel that generates the behavior.. Not why they feel it.

Trump gets elected.. its what people felt at that moment that triggered the behavior in the markets.

then a day later.. they FELT DIFFERENTLY.

Yet same event. Trump still got elected.
 
jaeger19 said:
How does it not "follow economic logic"?????? You mean that a seller of an service or product has no concern about the value of what he is exchanging his service or product for?
Click to expand...

Walmart isn't the only retailer, and their business model is predicated on low prices. Walmart isn't going to raise prices just because, nor will they lose confidence in the dollar just because. Why is still of the utmost importance.

They are an easy example of peoples behavior when they suffer lack of confidence or overconfidence. Most of the time.. peoples beliefs are much more subtle and complicated by multiple issues... which is why consumer confidence is computed.
Click to expand...

Nope! Short term equity movements are not synonymous of the economy.

Yeah no..
Click to expand...

A most bipolar way of beginning a thought.

a circuit breaker depends on the level the S and P 500 drops. its not triggered by a "breakdown in automation".
Click to expand...

As stated, equity markets are heavily automated, and when the algorithm seeks liquidity and cannot find it in a particular pool, it has resulted in both irrational and extreme execution orders. Which is why there are circuit breakers present in almost every developed equity exchange in the world.

You mean people will make a run on a bank because they FEEL? Say it isn't so Kush.
Click to expand...

Why they feel the bank will not honor their deposits is the crux. People do not just wake up and feel anxiety unless their is a catalyst.

your missing the boat here. It is WHAT people feel.... that triggers the behavior. Its WHAT they feel that generates the behavior.. Not why they feel it.
Click to expand...

Why they feel something is what matters, and that is the trigger of what. Why does consumer confidence go up and down?

Trump gets elected.. its what people felt at that moment that triggered the behavior in the markets.
Click to expand...

Incorrect again. Trump was elected and traders, investors, and hedge funds had a reaction for a reason. The why. It wasn't until he calmed markets with a pledge of infrastructure stimulus to the tune of $1 trillion that markets were calmed. The why is what matters.
 
Incisor said:
How so? Relying on the Federalist Papers is like relying on an Op-Ed. They're also only one half of the debate. They wrote those papers (some under pseudonyms) specifically because the Founders couldn't agree on putting that stuff in the Constitution. Relying on the Federalist Papers is deflection.




To what degree? And do you apply 18th Century logic to your daily life? Do you treat cancer with leeches or get around in a horse and buggy?




I called your response "Trumpian" because you avoided the question. So I'll ask again; if you shutter the DoE, what is to be done about student loans, Pell Grants, and standardized testing?




LOL! I think you've been stymied here. Did it burst your bubble to learn the Federalist Papers aren't, in fact, the law?
Click to expand...


no your post is a deflection, with horse and buggy :lamo because you don't know the constitution or the founders, and your bring trump into the picture which has nothing to do with the postings, which is another deflection

i bet it burst your bubble to know the left tried to use the federalist 68 last month to overturn the electors.
 
Last edited:
Master PO said:
i bet it burst your bubble to know the left tried to use the federalist 68 last month to overturn the electors.
Click to expand...

Did it work? No? Then the Federalist Papers =/= the Constitution.
 
Master PO said:
:lamo, so the father of the constitution does not know the constitution.
you only thing you know about the constitution is what the media told you
Click to expand...

Madison's name isn't the only name that appears on the Constitution. 38 other people signed it.
 
Kushinator said:
Walmart isn't the only retailer, and their business model is predicated on low prices. Walmart isn't going to raise prices just because, nor will they lose confidence in the dollar just because. Why is still of the utmost importance.

.
Click to expand...

Oh.. I see.. so now you recognize that a seller DOES care about the value of what they are exchanging their good or service for. Glad we cleared that up.

And the why isn't really of the utmost importance. that's what makes economics so interesting. Because on one day.. and event can cause people to feel a certain way and react one way. and the next day.. that same event can cause people to feel differently and act differently. What matters more is how people feel about the events.

Nope! Short term equity movements are not synonymous of the economy.
Click to expand...

nice diversion. They are good examples of peoples behavior when they suffer lack of confidence or over confidence. Its why we track consumer confidence.

A most bipolar way of beginning a thought.
Click to expand...

Thanks.

As stated, equity markets are heavily automated, and when the algorithm seeks liquidity and cannot find it in a particular pool, it has resulted in both irrational and extreme execution orders. Which is why there are circuit breakers present in almost every developed equity exchange in the world
Click to expand...

You sir are too funny. Rather than simply admit I am right.. you go off on a invalid discussion on whatever. Basically when you can't dazzle with brilliance you baffle with BS.

Yes.. nice little diversion but at the end of all that.. what triggers the circuit breaker is a certain amount of fall in the market. Not "failures in automation" or "when the algorithm seeks liquidity and cannot find a particular pool".

Why they feel the bank will not honor their deposits is the crux. People do not just wake up and feel anxiety unless their is a catalyst.
Click to expand...

Nope..its not. What they feel is the crux. That's why you can have the same event and people will react differently to it.

Why they feel something is what matters, and that is the trigger of what. Why does consumer confidence go up and down?
Click to expand...

nope.. not really. What they feel is what causes the actions. Sure the study of economics tries to find a why.. and hopefully its a consistent why to explain future reactions. But at the end of the day.. its the what they feel that's the cause of the behavior.

Incorrect again. Trump was elected and traders, investors, and hedge funds had a reaction for a reason. The why. It wasn't until he calmed markets with a pledge of infrastructure stimulus to the tune of $1 trillion that markets were calmed. The why is what matters
Click to expand...

Yeah no. They had a reaction because they felt a certain way one day.. and then woke up and felt differently the next day. You and others have gone off and tried to find a reason for that change.. which is a normal reaction. But you sir got it wrong. Here is why.

TRUMP PUT FORTH HIS INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN BEFORE THE ELECTION. From your own link:

And that seems to be the principle undergirding the $1-trillion infrastructure construction plan that President-elect Donald Trump proposed shortly before election day. Trump outflanked a $275-billion plan offered by his Democratic opponent, Hillary Clinton — though he asserted that his plan would require only $167 billion in actual government outlays via tax credits to private construction companies.
The program was a linchpin of Trump’s promise to pump up U.S. economic growth to 4% a year and create 25 million new jobs
Click to expand...

Sorry sir.. but you simply got it wrong.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom