All Forums > General Discussion > Non-Sports > Socialism Experiment
3/5/2013 11:37 AM
Posted by MikeT23 on 3/5/2013 11:28:00 AM (view original):
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.
I don't think you'd understand it. You think that the government could sell treasuries to eliminate the deficit.
3/5/2013 11:38 AM
Posted by MikeT23 on 3/5/2013 11:29:00 AM (view original):
BTW, enjoy your vacation, dumbass.
ah, did the hot dog in a hallway option hit a little too close to home?

poor yitto mikey.
3/5/2013 11:42 AM
Posted by MikeT23 on 3/5/2013 11:29:00 AM (view original):
BTW, enjoy your vacation, dumbass.
You know you got to someone when they red line and tried to get you banned.

Who would have thought the WIS super bully was so thin skinned.
3/5/2013 11:46 AM
Posted by bad_luck on 3/5/2013 11:37:00 AM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 3/5/2013 11:28:00 AM (view original):
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.
I don't think you'd understand it. You think that the government could sell treasuries to eliminate the deficit.
Maybe you can explain how people stopping spending caused the recession again.

That was also fun.

As for the redline, I do that all the time.   All the better when it's a raging ******* who gets a few days off.
3/5/2013 11:55 AM
Posted by MikeT23 on 3/5/2013 11:46:00 AM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 3/5/2013 11:37:00 AM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 3/5/2013 11:28:00 AM (view original):
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.
I don't think you'd understand it. You think that the government could sell treasuries to eliminate the deficit.
Maybe you can explain how people stopping spending caused the recession again.

That was also fun.

As for the redline, I do that all the time.   All the better when it's a raging ******* who gets a few days off.
So it's not surprising that you're so thin skinned?

We were in a recession because people stopped spending. Even, tec, who got all wrapped up in the semantics would agree with that. But I'm sure you don't understand that either.
3/5/2013 12:01 PM

Depends on your definition of thin-skinned.   Your post was just a bonus.  I figured you'd just be your normal ******* self and that would be enough.   But you chose to double down.   Seems like you'd learn.

What caused the recession?  

3/5/2013 12:04 PM
Goddamnit, don't try to paint me as agreeing with your special brand of stupidity.

We did not go into a recession because people stopped spending.  We went into a recession because the economy crashed.  People stopped spending as a by-product of that, not as a cause of that.

Again: cause --> effect.  Not the other way around.
3/5/2013 12:06 PM

Use smaller words.   I missed three pages yesterday/last night and I imagine most of that was you trying to explain that point.   He's not getting it.

3/5/2013 12:07 PM
Posted by tecwrg on 3/5/2013 12:04:00 PM (view original):
Goddamnit, don't try to paint me as agreeing with your special brand of stupidity.

We did not go into a recession because people stopped spending.  We went into a recession because the economy crashed.  People stopped spending as a by-product of that, not as a cause of that.

Again: cause --> effect.  Not the other way around.
Are you joking?

The real estate bubble popped. What did that cause? A massive decrease in spending. That's why we went into a recession. That's why the stimulus helped pull us up. That's why things slowed down again when the stimulus ran out. That's why we shouldn't cut the deficit until we're fully recovered.


3/5/2013 12:12 PM
Posted by bad_luck on 3/4/2013 7:23:00 PM (view original):
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..


I understand what you're saying - what I don't understand is why you can't see that there is no endgame to that course of action.  You're advocating that the government prop up the economy until we have another bubble.  At that point the government will use the increased revenues to feverishly pay down the debt we've incurred waiting for said bubble, while making common sense cuts to social programs that aren't as needed, thereby simultaneously reducing the deficit.  Setting aside the fact that expecting the government to exercise common sense is a fool's errand, the bubble that allows all this to happen will inevitably burst, and we'll be right back here again.  And the debt isn't getting any smaller over the years.  We cut the deficit from time to time, but the debt continues to grow.  We will eventually reach the point of critical mass, where even a booming economy doesn't allow the government to make interest-only payments on the debt we've accrued.  There are obviously people who are content to kick that can down the road to another generation.  There are also those of us who are not.

And, yes, it's less positive for the economy for the government to create the jobs.  Every penny the government spends creating jobs is a penny that Apple (or other companies) can't spend to create jobs (either currently or in the future, due to taxes).  And the private sector is FAR more efficient at creating market-relevant jobs than the government is.
3/5/2013 12:13 PM
Posted by MikeT23 on 3/5/2013 11:29:00 AM (view original):
BTW, enjoy your vacation, dumbass.
Good call though. I am going to Mammoth on Thursday.
3/5/2013 12:17 PM
Posted by examinerebb on 3/5/2013 12:12:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 3/4/2013 7:23:00 PM (view original):
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..


I understand what you're saying - what I don't understand is why you can't see that there is no endgame to that course of action.  You're advocating that the government prop up the economy until we have another bubble.  At that point the government will use the increased revenues to feverishly pay down the debt we've incurred waiting for said bubble, while making common sense cuts to social programs that aren't as needed, thereby simultaneously reducing the deficit.  Setting aside the fact that expecting the government to exercise common sense is a fool's errand, the bubble that allows all this to happen will inevitably burst, and we'll be right back here again.  And the debt isn't getting any smaller over the years.  We cut the deficit from time to time, but the debt continues to grow.  We will eventually reach the point of critical mass, where even a booming economy doesn't allow the government to make interest-only payments on the debt we've accrued.  There are obviously people who are content to kick that can down the road to another generation.  There are also those of us who are not.

And, yes, it's less positive for the economy for the government to create the jobs.  Every penny the government spends creating jobs is a penny that Apple (or other companies) can't spend to create jobs (either currently or in the future, due to taxes).  And the private sector is FAR more efficient at creating market-relevant jobs than the government is.
Why would there need to be another bubble? Our economy can grow without a bubble. We can have full employment without a bubble.

Regarding your second paragraph, it's better for private businesses to create jobs. Agree 100%. But if they aren't, because it isn't rational for them to do so when demand is so sluggish, deficit spending financed at near zero interest rates is the best alternative. Because otherwise, the money just sits in a savings account somewhere and the downward spiral goes on.
3/5/2013 12:50 PM
In an earlier post, you cited 5% unemployment as the benchmark at which the government would stop spending.  I'm assuming that's your threshold for a healthy economy.  Since 1972, we've been there twice - during the dot-com bubble and during the mortgage bubble.  That would indicate to me that it requires a bubble to get where you're comfortable with putting the brakes on spending.
3/5/2013 1:00 PM
Posted by examinerebb on 3/5/2013 12:50:00 PM (view original):
In an earlier post, you cited 5% unemployment as the benchmark at which the government would stop spending.  I'm assuming that's your threshold for a healthy economy.  Since 1972, we've been there twice - during the dot-com bubble and during the mortgage bubble.  That would indicate to me that it requires a bubble to get where you're comfortable with putting the brakes on spending.
That's theoretical full employment. We probably can't get that far without a bubble, you're right. But 6.5% is possible and would be good enough to pull back spending.
3/5/2013 1:12 PM
Posted by bad_luck on 3/5/2013 12:08:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 3/5/2013 12:04:00 PM (view original):
Goddamnit, don't try to paint me as agreeing with your special brand of stupidity.

We did not go into a recession because people stopped spending.  We went into a recession because the economy crashed.  People stopped spending as a by-product of that, not as a cause of that.

Again: cause --> effect.  Not the other way around.
Are you joking?

The real estate bubble popped. What did that cause? A massive decrease in spending. That's why we went into a recession. That's why the stimulus helped pull us up. That's why things slowed down again when the stimulus ran out. That's why we shouldn't cut the deficit until we're fully recovered.


There was a cascading series of events that occurred to cause the recession.  A slowdown in consumer spending came at the tail end of these events.  That did not CAUSE the recession to occur . . . it was already underway.  Consumer spending was inevitable collateral damage for what had become an unstoppable series of financial failures.

You can read about it here.

I don't think you ever answered my question . . . .were you comatose in 2008 when all this was happening?
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.