All Forums > General Discussion > Non-Sports > Socialism Experiment
3/4/2013 7:03 PM

I'm guessing that badluck read something somewhere that said the key to fixing the economy was "stimulating demand" and he's fixated on it ever since.

And hasn't heard or understood a thing the rest of us have said.

3/4/2013 7:04 PM
Your assumption is predicated on either:

a) the government spending enough to create enough jobs to get us to 5% unemployment

or

b) there being some other plan in existence, that none of us are privy to, to create those jobs

or

c) we do it indefinitely in the hopes that, someday, a plan exists to create those jobs

I can't see how Option A happens.  It would require either a back-breaking amount of revenue from the current wage earners or an increase in the national debt so steep that the interest payments become overly cumbersome as rates rise with an improving economy.  So I would assume it's Option B or C, in which case we're (among other things) back to fixing the housing market.
3/4/2013 7:23 PM
Posted by examinerebb on 3/4/2013 7:04:00 PM (view original):
Your assumption is predicated on either:

a) the government spending enough to create enough jobs to get us to 5% unemployment

or

b) there being some other plan in existence, that none of us are privy to, to create those jobs

or

c) we do it indefinitely in the hopes that, someday, a plan exists to create those jobs

I can't see how Option A happens.  It would require either a back-breaking amount of revenue from the current wage earners or an increase in the national debt so steep that the interest payments become overly cumbersome as rates rise with an improving economy.  So I would assume it's Option B or C, in which case we're (among other things) back to fixing the housing market.
The point isn't that the government fixes the economy by itself. It's that the government spends enough to fill the hole while demand is low, propping up the economy until it's rational for individuals to fill it themselves, and then scales back and addresses the deficit.

If Apple decided, **** it, we want to spend a billion dollars hiring more employees, you'd agree that that would have a positive effect on the economy, correct? Those new employees now have paychecks that they spend etc., etc. etc..

Is it somehow less positive for the economy if the government decides to spend a billion dollars hiring companies to repave highways? Those construction workers now have paychecks that they spend etc., etc., etc..


3/4/2013 8:54 PM
Posted by toddcommish on 3/4/2013 7:03:00 PM (view original):

I'm guessing that badluck read something somewhere that said the key to fixing the economy was "stimulating demand" and he's fixated on it ever since.

And hasn't heard or understood a thing the rest of us have said.

He's like a child who can only focus on one thing at a time.

Likewise, in his mind, the government should only do one thing at a time.  It can ONLY focus on fixing the economy.  It CANNOT attempt to address the deficit.  Because that would be two different things, which apparently is not possible.

I'm sure most successful businesses can ONLY do one thing at a time.  That's how and why they became successful businesses.
3/4/2013 9:37 PM
Posted by tecwrg on 3/4/2013 8:54:00 PM (view original):
Posted by toddcommish on 3/4/2013 7:03:00 PM (view original):

I'm guessing that badluck read something somewhere that said the key to fixing the economy was "stimulating demand" and he's fixated on it ever since.

And hasn't heard or understood a thing the rest of us have said.

He's like a child who can only focus on one thing at a time.

Likewise, in his mind, the government should only do one thing at a time.  It can ONLY focus on fixing the economy.  It CANNOT attempt to address the deficit.  Because that would be two different things, which apparently is not possible.

I'm sure most successful businesses can ONLY do one thing at a time.  That's how and why they became successful businesses.
Amazing.
3/5/2013 12:16 AM
Posted by tecwrg on 3/4/2013 8:54:00 PM (view original):
Posted by toddcommish on 3/4/2013 7:03:00 PM (view original):

I'm guessing that badluck read something somewhere that said the key to fixing the economy was "stimulating demand" and he's fixated on it ever since.

And hasn't heard or understood a thing the rest of us have said.

He's like a child who can only focus on one thing at a time.

Likewise, in his mind, the government should only do one thing at a time.  It can ONLY focus on fixing the economy.  It CANNOT attempt to address the deficit.  Because that would be two different things, which apparently is not possible.

I'm sure most successful businesses can ONLY do one thing at a time.  That's how and why they became successful businesses.
No offense, but the more you guys try to make fun of bad_luck, the more you sound like idiots.  Just go read the Wikipedia page on Keynesian Economics at least before you try to act like he's the one ignoring reasonable thinking...

The most egregiously stupid thing in this post is the continued ignorance of the fact that addressing the deficit and fixing the economy aren't just different things.  According to basic economic principles, it IS not possible to do those things at once.  They aren't just different, they're opposite.  The government has basically 2 things to do to try to support the economy on a large scale: 1) reduce the prime rate and 2) operate at a deficit to pump money into the economy.  If you start to not only rule out one of those 2 things but in fact go backwards on it, you're going to hurt the economy.  That's basic economic theory and historically empirical fact.  You, toddcommish, and miket just can't get it through your heads.  But BL is absolutely NOT the one who sounds stupid here.

A high school economics class would put you guys right...
3/5/2013 2:30 AM
Dahs, you're jumping aboard as if Keynesian economics is the ONLY truth in the world of economics.  As I've mentioned earlier, Keynesian economics is a THEORY of economics, and fails fundamentally to address HUMAN BEHAVIOR and the effect of human emotion on supply, demand, and consumption.  You're coming off as an intellectual snob who sees only his field, and not the whole picture.

If you want to argue that the government is run by Keynesians, that might very well be true (and part of the problem).  The US economy isn't run in an economics classroom.  It is filled with 300 million PEOPLE, some who make buying decisions and long-term purchases and loan decisions based on EMOTION.  And not based on Keynesian theories about when people should buy.  

Put another way, is there a rational, sound, economic reason why millions of people would accept ****** loan deals (negative amortization, variable rates tied to LIBOR with outrageous margins, etc.) with little or no chance to see the loan through to its conclusion? 

So take your condescending tone back to your classroom.  It doesn't work well in the real world.
3/5/2013 9:24 AM
Keynesian economics is all about rational behavior. If you lose your job, how many new cars will you buy? How much will you increase your food and clothing budgets?
3/5/2013 9:28 AM
Yet you are arguing that irrational behavior (i.e. wasteful spending) on the part of the government is a positive thing for the economy.
3/5/2013 10:20 AM (edited)
Yes

Edit for clarification: the spending is wasteful but not irrational.
3/5/2013 11:17 AM
Going back to page 3 or so, don't you think consumer confidence would be higher if a number of things were better?   You know, like a passed budget, feeble attempt at reducing the deficit, less wasteful spending, etc, etc?

We don't live in a bubble where government spending is the only thing that can drive the economy.     On the micro level(which you brought up), my business is not making what it was in 2006 but we are making money.   I'm far more inclined to just pay myself more(meaning I put money in the dreaded savings) than to invest back into the business.  Why?  Because I don't think our government can control spending and the tax increases are going to be bigger and on progressively lower income brackets.  I think this is going to squeeze a lot of people.   I've made it thru two recessions.   I'm not sure I want to fight thru a third.

I doubt I'm the only small business owner who feels this way.
3/5/2013 11:23 AM
Posted by MikeT23 on 2/28/2013 1:33:00 PM (view original):
I'm well-aware of what our government spends money on.
I'm equally aware that our government has no idea what a budget is or how to balance one.

You see, most people say "I have $100 after I pay my bills this week.  What should I do with it?" and make a decision to spend or save.
Our government says "I'm 1 billion more in debt after I pay my bills this week.  How much more should I spend and where?"   It's simply unsustainable unless we intend to become a border country with no imports/exports.    That's why the deficit matters. 
Going back to page 12, this is ******* hilarious.

It's you, pretending like you understand anything at all about how the deficit works, exactly one day before you make your grand reveal.
3/5/2013 11:25 AM
Posted by MikeT23 on 3/5/2013 11:17:00 AM (view original):
Going back to page 3 or so, don't you think consumer confidence would be higher if a number of things were better?   You know, like a passed budget, feeble attempt at reducing the deficit, less wasteful spending, etc, etc?

We don't live in a bubble where government spending is the only thing that can drive the economy.     On the micro level(which you brought up), my business is not making what it was in 2006 but we are making money.   I'm far more inclined to just pay myself more(meaning I put money in the dreaded savings) than to invest back into the business.  Why?  Because I don't think our government can control spending and the tax increases are going to be bigger and on progressively lower income brackets.  I think this is going to squeeze a lot of people.   I've made it thru two recessions.   I'm not sure I want to fight thru a third.

I doubt I'm the only small business owner who feels this way.
Is it a waste of time if I explain it all to you?
3/5/2013 11:28 AM
No, why don't you.

You did so well with "Wasteful spending is good" that I'm sure you'll be entertaining if nothing else.
3/5/2013 11:29 AM
BTW, enjoy your vacation, dumbass.
of 45
All Forums > General Discussion > Non-Sports > Socialism Experiment

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

Popular on WhatIfSports site: Baseball Simulation | College Basketball Game | College Football Game | Online Baseball Game | Hockey Simulation | NFL Picks | College Football Picks | Sports Games

© 1999-2014 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.