Consumers create jobs.

[Oldstyle]

Saturday Night Live _ Pathological Liar - Video Dailymotion

 

[expat_panama]

...So those three items, health care, food and energy all share the characteristic of having inelastic demand. By definition, if the price of food goes up, you still will buy food. Maybe less expensive food, or less of it, but in general supply and demand change little with changes in price.
Then, you have the issue of monopoly power of suppliers of these goods. As consumers have fewer options in a market, suppliers can increase price without big changes in demand. Profit increases, price increases. Suppliers make more, consumers pay more. All three fit perfectly in into this category of the market.
Over the past year, prices of oil have gone up, then down, and now up again. As the prices went up the first time, about a year ago, supply was higher than it had been for years, and demand was lower than it had been for years. So, prices should have been going down, but the opposition was happening. Because monopoly power with inelastic demand was in place. And we have the highest health care cost in the world. And food prices keep rising.

Let's clarify your post. Sounds like you're sort of agreeing with UScitizen--

There are certain items that the law of syupply and demand do not work very well on.
Medical care.
Energy.
Food.

--and what we've got here is that while you're both unhappy with how markets allocate food, energy, and medcare, neither of you offer anything better. The American adult population has opposed the confiscation and nationalization of auto production and healthcare because they know that being unhappy about something is not an adequate reason to end it. There has to be a better idea first.

Please consider and present your alternative.

 

[Rshermr]

...So those three items, health care, food and energy all share the characteristic of having inelastic demand. By definition, if the price of food goes up, you still will buy food. Maybe less expensive food, or less of it, but in general supply and demand change little with changes in price.
Then, you have the issue of monopoly power of suppliers of these goods. As consumers have fewer options in a market, suppliers can increase price without big changes in demand. Profit increases, price increases. Suppliers make more, consumers pay more. All three fit perfectly in into this category of the market.
Over the past year, prices of oil have gone up, then down, and now up again. As the prices went up the first time, about a year ago, supply was higher than it had been for years, and demand was lower than it had been for years. So, prices should have been going down, but the opposition was happening. Because monopoly power with inelastic demand was in place. And we have the highest health care cost in the world. And food prices keep rising.

Let's clarify your post. Sounds like you're sort of agreeing with UScitizen--

There are certain items that the law of syupply and demand do not work very well on.
Medical care.
Energy.
Food.

--and what we've got here is that while you're both unhappy with how markets allocate food, energy, and medcare, neither of you offer anything better. The American adult population has opposed the confiscation and nationalization of auto production and healthcare because they know that being unhappy about something is not an adequate reason to end it. There has to be a better idea first.

Please consider and present your alternative.

So, what you are saying is that you prefer the market system to allocate products, via supply and demand. What I am saying is that such a system would be great, if there was not monopoly power. By definition, a market system needs to have a competitive environment to function. Without that competitive environment, you do not have a market system any longer.
So I do not think that economic systems are either good or bad. They are only so in the eyes of the beholder. And a competitive, or market, system is great for the monopolist, not so great for the citizen, or the worker. You have to understand that Adam Smith, in the Wealth of Nations, stated that monopolies need to be regulated. I believe that to be true. So, I am all for antitrust legislation. And a regulated capitalistic economy.

 

[Rshermr]

What I understand is that you were perfectly willing to discuss your "private life" when you were telling us all that you were an authority on econmics because you taught economics at the college level.Again, oldstyle, you are lying. You know perfectly well that I do not consider myself an economics expert, as I told you succinctly. And, oldstyle, since I told you that teaching a year of economics was not a big deal at all, except to you, you know fully well that I was not attempting to show some level of "authority"...it's only when it was pointed out to you that undergraduates don't teach at the college level that you decided your "private life" was suddenly off limits. Pointed out?? Really, as in you are the expert in such things. The above sentence is untrue, and the statement that undergraduates don't teach at the college level is untrue. But, whatever, oldstyle.

What's amusing is that you actually have the gall to come on here and talk about "integrity". You 're a liar. You know it...I know it...and anyone who's followed this string knows it. Wow, look at oldstyle go. No I do not lie, and I do not care if you do or not. You do, profusely, but I really do not care. Because, as I have said, oldstyle, you have no class. Again, another complete post by you without touching the subject of the thread.

As for personal attacks? That's all you've done SINCE you got caught telling your lie. Again, oldstyle, untrue. Unless, of course, you count what I had to say to you for calling me a liar. For that you are a shit, oldstyle. You totally lack class. As for others following this thread, I am absolutely sure that they wish you would get back to the subject. But then, of course, they are by now beginning to understand that you are simply incapable of economic argument. Another of your lies, oldstyle, is that you took a couple economics classes and paid attention. Hell, oldstyle, apparently you know absolutely nothing about economics, as you are incapable of posting to this rather simple subject. So you apparently did not pay attention, eh oldstyle. But then, since we are discussing each others opinions, I think you win the clear plastic navel award, for keeping your head up your ass for so long.

 

[Oldstyle]

What I understand is that you were perfectly willing to discuss your "private life" when you were telling us all that you were an authority on econmics because you taught economics at the college level.Again, oldstyle, you are lying. You know perfectly well that I do not consider myself an economics expert, as I told you succinctly. And, oldstyle, since I told you that teaching a year of economics was not a big deal at all, except to you, you know fully well that I was not attempting to show some level of "authority"...it's only when it was pointed out to you that undergraduates don't teach at the college level that you decided your "private life" was suddenly off limits. Pointed out?? Really, as in you are the expert in such things. The above sentence is untrue, and the statement that undergraduates don't teach at the college level is untrue. But, whatever, oldstyle.


Undergraduates teach at the college level? Really? If that is the case then why are you unable to provide any examples of where this takes place? Why is it that you refuse to divulge the name of the college where you supposedly taught as an undergraduate? Is there anyone here that had their undergraduate courses taught by OTHER undergraduates? I had TA's that were graduate students when I went to UMass. I'm sure many other people here did as well at their college. That is a common practice among colleges, especially with entry level courses. You however want us to believe that you taught college courses as an undergrad and you have backed that statement up with NOTHING. Not the name of the course...not the name of the Professor you worked with...not the name of the college this supposedly took place at. You've just accused me of making an "untrue" statement. When someone does that it's customary to back up such a statement with proof as to why that is. You don't do that.

 

[Oldstyle]

What's amusing is that you actually have the gall to come on here and talk about "integrity". You 're a liar. You know it...I know it...and anyone who's followed this string knows it. Wow, look at oldstyle go. No I do not lie, and I do not care if you do or not. You do, profusely, but I really do not care. Because, as I have said, oldstyle, you have no class. Again, another complete post by you without touching the subject of the thread.

I lie profusely? Really? Name a lie that I have told.

 

[Oldstyle]

As for personal attacks? That's all you've done SINCE you got caught telling your lie. Again, oldstyle, untrue. Unless, of course, you count what I had to say to you for calling me a liar. For that you are a shit, oldstyle. You totally lack class. As for others following this thread, I am absolutely sure that they wish you would get back to the subject. But then, of course, they are by now beginning to understand that you are simply incapable of economic argument. Another of your lies, oldstyle, is that you took a couple economics classes and paid attention. Hell, oldstyle, apparently you know absolutely nothing about economics, as you are incapable of posting to this rather simple subject. So you apparently did not pay attention, eh oldstyle. But then, since we are discussing each others opinions, I think you win the clear plastic navel award, for keeping your head up your ass for so long.

Again, an accusation made without a single example given. What economic argument have I made in this string or in any other that proves that I know nothing about economics?

And again with base insults. The reason you stoop to calling me a "shit" is that you have no answer to getting yourself out of the corner you've painted yourself into with this claim of that you taught economics in college as an undergraduate. Just so you know...each time I see you post that kind of juvenile drivel I know that you're desperately trying to save face. Take note that I don't have to resort to that...but then again...I'm not the one who got caught red handed lying.

 

[Oldstyle]

As for your "claim" that I know nothing about economics and are incapable of posting to the subject? What's laughable about THAT is all someone has to do is go back through this string and look at the numerous posts that I made doing JUST THAT!!! Like the following...


The fact that you view taxes as a "profit", Lil...shows me how clueless you are when it comes to economics. Government does not make a profit. The Private Sector makes profits and then pays taxes on those profits.

When the Bush tax cuts took money out of the hands of government it left that money in the hands of the consumer to spend. Are you REALLY that slow that you can't see that?

Are you kidding? Your summation of what occurred during the Reagan Presidency was so full of factual errors and misinterpretations of what really happened as to be laughable.

Reaganomics Vs. Obamanomics: Facts And Figures - Forbes

The truth is...after getting the stagflation that Jimmy Carter left him under control (notice how Reagan actually DID something rather than just blame his predecessor?) cutting the inflation rate by half in only a couple years (which was the cause of higher unemployment by the way as he tightened up the money supply) Reagan cut taxes, cut government regulations and cut discretionary spending other than to the military. That set us up for the longest sustained period of time in our nation's history without a recession, creating vast amounts of wealth as we increased the size of our economy and added 20 million new jobs (not jobs "saved" but actual jobs CREATED!!!).

Now compare THAT to what Barack Obama has done since coming into office! Barry has never had a plan to fix the economy...he's just kept interest rates as low as he could by having the Fed pump out cash (which makes every dollar in our wallets worth less...a hidden Obama "tax") and kept as many of his union buddies and supporters in the Public Sector and the "Green Energy" sector flush with cash with his so called stimulus...while waiting for the economy to recover on it's own. "THAT" is Barry's plan!!! To do nothing to help the Private Sector and just hope that they can succeed despite him.

I don't think you know anything about what occurred during the Reagan presidency. Yes, Reagan cut taxes but he also broadened the tax base and aggressively closed tax loopholes and exemptions. It's basically the same approach that Paul Ryan was advocating. Unlike yourself, I actually know something about what I post here. You post things that you THINK you know about. The truth is...Reagan had an economic plan to get the country out to the recession he inherited from Jimmy Carter...a plan that he stuck to even when he took serious heat over a brief increase in the unemployment rate while he addressed inflation. Reagan showed real political courage.

Now would you like to explain to us what Barack Obama's economic plan is to get us out of the recession he inherited from W.? I say he hasn't had one since Larry Summers tucked tail and headed back to brainwash some more kids at Harvard about the "wonders" of Keynesian economics theory. Care to school me?
Ah...that's his plan to try and get "reelected", Ed...I think that even someone as clueless as Barry is about economics knows that neither green jobs nor tax the rich is going to get us out of this economic downturn. Those things are just smoke and mirrors to divert the electorate's attention away from how badly he's handled his job since taking over as President.

If Obama gets in for another four years we're going to grind along with 1 to 2% growth and with unemployment hovering somewhere around 8%.

If lower income taxes doesn't stimulate the economy then would you care to explain why both JFK and Reagan used them quite effectively to do just that? If getting rid of bad regulations doesn't stimulate the economy then perhaps you'd like to explain how Reagan's getting rid of the price controls on oil imposed by Jimmy Carter DIDN'T stimulate growth? You haven't given me a single example yet but you accuse "me" of slinging "vacuous con dogma"? The truth is...the person slinging it on here at the moment, is you. I'm not asking you to just "believe me"...I'm asking you to actually learn economic theory and apply it.

Reagan inherited an economy that was in full stagflation mode. He had to deal with both nasty unemployment AND rampant inflation. The REASON the unemployment level went to over 10% is that Reagan chose to first tackle inflation...tightening up the money supply. Doing so caused unemployment to rise (making Reagan's approval numbers plummet a year into his first term) but it was very effective in solving the inflation problem, cutting the rate of inflation in half within a two year period. You see, unlike Barry...Ronald Reagan did the nasty work that makes you unpopular but fixes the problems you have. Unlike Barry, Ronald Reagan had an economic plan and he stuck to it despite having to take a political hit.

By the way...the REASON that Reagan had a working relationship with the Democratically controlled Congress was that he treated his opposition with respect and worked WITH them. He and Tip O'Neal couldn't have been further apart ideologically but they were friends. Now contrast that with how Barry treated the people across the aisle during HIS first term. Or have you forgotten his "Elections have consequences...I won." speech to Eric Cantor? Republicans HAVE tried to block major parts of the Obama agenda but even a blinders wearing partisan like yourself has to admit that during his first year in office the Republicans COULDN'T block that agenda because Barry had super majorities in both the House and the Senate. The people that blocked Obama during THAT period of time were moderate Democrats.

You really want to argue economic policy with me? I'm still waiting to hear you explain to me what Barack Obama's economic policy "is". Care to take a stab at that?

Would ANY of you progressives care to take a crack at summing up what Barry's plan is to get the economy going again?

A tax raise that goes against the very Keynesian economic fundamentals that progressives have always put forth as the way to go?

A "jobs plan" that is simply a watered down version of his failed stimulus?

Come on guys...what IS Barry's plan to get the country going again?

I rewrote Reagan's economic policies? How so? I simply stated what his policies WERE. Would you care to dispute what I put forward? Did Reagan NOT first attack inflation by tightening up the money supply? Did he NOT get rid of Jimmy Carter's price controls on oil? Did he NOT then restructure the tax code and cut taxes?

I don't think you really CAN argue economics with me, Rshermr because A) you don't seem to have a basic understanding of the subject and B) you've let your politics blind you to reality.

I've asked this several times now and you and the rest of the Progressives on the board have avoided it like Superman avoids Kryptonite. What "is" Barry's economic plan to move the country forward? Since you claim to know so much about economics and are such a strong supporter of Obama then you obviously can list what the President is proposing to make the economy take off? Right? So let's hear it!

You know what you are, Rshermr? You're a poser. You come on this board and pretend to know about economics and history...spouting off about what Ronald Reagan did when HE was President...but when someone calls you on your nonsense you run away and hide. Pathetic...

"Sure" and "Wow"...that's the sum total of your response when challenged to back up your assertions, Rshermr?

You, my progressive friend are an intellectual "lightweight". Get back to me when you want to have a REAL discussion about economics. I'd love to hear you explain to me how Barry's call for higher taxes on the wealthy in the midst of an economic downturn is something that John Maynard Keynes EVER would have advocated. The rather ironic truth is that Ronald Reagan understood Keynesian economic principles better than Barack Obama does...because HE raised taxes after the economy started to rapidly expand. Keynes would have applauded that...he'd have asked Barack Obama what the heck he was thinking.

Reagan was facing stagflation...which is a combination of rampant inflation, a slow economy and high unemployment. Stagflation is especially difficult because the remedy for inflation will usually cause an even slower economy and higher unemployment. In many ways the economic puzzle that Reagan DID solve was harder than the one that Obama has utterly failed at.

What even a liberal economist like Christina Romer understood is that raising taxes on ANYONE in the midst of an economic slowdown isn't good economic policy because it will further slow down the economy.

I can only laugh at your contention that Barry is doing something about the deficit, Ooh. He just added another huge entitlement to a system that couldn't support the existing ones. He's running trillion dollar deficits each year that he's been in office and there's no end in sight. The truth is...Barack Obama isn't dealing with the deficit. It's the primary reason that our credit got downgraded. Even if he were successful in raising taxes on the wealthy doing so would only pay the exploding cost of our government for a few weeks. Of course he knows only too well that tax will never get through a GOP controlled House so it's quite obvious that it's just election year posturing. We need REAL solutions to our economic problems...not Kabuki theater from the man who's supposed to be leading us.

I'm amused by the progressive refrain that reducing taxes and government spending doesn't "work" to stimulate an economy. The truth is it ALWAYS works. You say it doesn't work for "obvious reasons" and then conveniently fail to disclose what those reasons ARE.

You make the flawed argument that government not having money to spend means that money is not being spent. What actually happens is that money is spent by the Private Sector INSTEAD of the Public Sector.

Did you really just make the assertion that in a good economy reducing taxes can have a good effect? You have no clue about Keynesian economic theory...do you? Keynes advocated the raising of taxes in economic boom times. He advocated doing so to both cool off an overheated economy but more importantly to repay the money that government would spend during an economic slowdown. Reducing taxes in a boom economy would lead to a bubble and burst economic cycle. If you're going to espouse Keynesian economic theory...don't you think you should familiarize yourself with it's basic principles? Duh?

 

[Oldstyle]

And that was just in the first 6 pages of discussion... Should I continue?

 

[Rshermr]

Why, oldstyle. Just shows you making accusations and statements without any proof at all. Just as I said. And, oldstyle, we can see what you and others said without your having you pick out the points you want people to see. Why you would want them to, I do not know. Do you have a point here. What I said is that you are incapable of backing up what you say, rather you simply make accusations. And you do not seem to know when you loose a point. Just ignorance, me boy. Stupidity, you see. But go on as long as you like. You are about to the point where you left the whole issue of economics behind. Funny thing is you seem to have left out the responses, oldstyle. Hate to show yourself getting crushed?. But that is old news, is it not. So, what is new, oldstyle. Just more editing the past to try to change it?? No integrity, oldstyle. No game.

 

[Pho_King]

I want a fifteen foot graphite medium light action spinning rod! How many jobs did I just create?

 

[Rshermr]

As for your "claim" that I know nothing about economics and are incapable of posting to the subject? What's laughable about THAT is all someone has to do is go back through this string and look at the numerous posts that I made doing JUST THAT!!! Like the following...


The fact that you view taxes as a "profit", Lil...shows me how clueless you are when it comes to economics. Government does not make a profit. The Private Sector makes profits and then pays taxes on those profits.

When the Bush tax cuts took money out of the hands of government it left that money in the hands of the consumer to spend. Are you REALLY that slow that you can't see that?

Are you kidding? Your summation of what occurred during the Reagan Presidency was so full of factual errors and misinterpretations of what really happened as to be laughable.

Reaganomics Vs. Obamanomics: Facts And Figures - Forbes

The truth is...after getting the stagflation that Jimmy Carter left him under control (notice how Reagan actually DID something rather than just blame his predecessor?) cutting the inflation rate by half in only a couple years (which was the cause of higher unemployment by the way as he tightened up the money supply) Reagan cut taxes, cut government regulations and cut discretionary spending other than to the military. That set us up for the longest sustained period of time in our nation's history without a recession, creating vast amounts of wealth as we increased the size of our economy and added 20 million new jobs (not jobs "saved" but actual jobs CREATED!!!).

Now compare THAT to what Barack Obama has done since coming into office! Barry has never had a plan to fix the economy...he's just kept interest rates as low as he could by having the Fed pump out cash (which makes every dollar in our wallets worth less...a hidden Obama "tax") and kept as many of his union buddies and supporters in the Public Sector and the "Green Energy" sector flush with cash with his so called stimulus...while waiting for the economy to recover on it's own. "THAT" is Barry's plan!!! To do nothing to help the Private Sector and just hope that they can succeed despite him.

I don't think you know anything about what occurred during the Reagan presidency. Yes, Reagan cut taxes but he also broadened the tax base and aggressively closed tax loopholes and exemptions. It's basically the same approach that Paul Ryan was advocating. Unlike yourself, I actually know something about what I post here. You post things that you THINK you know about. The truth is...Reagan had an economic plan to get the country out to the recession he inherited from Jimmy Carter...a plan that he stuck to even when he took serious heat over a brief increase in the unemployment rate while he addressed inflation. Reagan showed real political courage.

Now would you like to explain to us what Barack Obama's economic plan is to get us out of the recession he inherited from W.? I say he hasn't had one since Larry Summers tucked tail and headed back to brainwash some more kids at Harvard about the "wonders" of Keynesian economics theory. Care to school me?
Ah...that's his plan to try and get "reelected", Ed...I think that even someone as clueless as Barry is about economics knows that neither green jobs nor tax the rich is going to get us out of this economic downturn. Those things are just smoke and mirrors to divert the electorate's attention away from how badly he's handled his job since taking over as President.

If Obama gets in for another four years we're going to grind along with 1 to 2% growth and with unemployment hovering somewhere around 8%.

If lower income taxes doesn't stimulate the economy then would you care to explain why both JFK and Reagan used them quite effectively to do just that? If getting rid of bad regulations doesn't stimulate the economy then perhaps you'd like to explain how Reagan's getting rid of the price controls on oil imposed by Jimmy Carter DIDN'T stimulate growth? You haven't given me a single example yet but you accuse "me" of slinging "vacuous con dogma"? The truth is...the person slinging it on here at the moment, is you. I'm not asking you to just "believe me"...I'm asking you to actually learn economic theory and apply it.

Reagan inherited an economy that was in full stagflation mode. He had to deal with both nasty unemployment AND rampant inflation. The REASON the unemployment level went to over 10% is that Reagan chose to first tackle inflation...tightening up the money supply. Doing so caused unemployment to rise (making Reagan's approval numbers plummet a year into his first term) but it was very effective in solving the inflation problem, cutting the rate of inflation in half within a two year period. You see, unlike Barry...Ronald Reagan did the nasty work that makes you unpopular but fixes the problems you have. Unlike Barry, Ronald Reagan had an economic plan and he stuck to it despite having to take a political hit.

By the way...the REASON that Reagan had a working relationship with the Democratically controlled Congress was that he treated his opposition with respect and worked WITH them. He and Tip O'Neal couldn't have been further apart ideologically but they were friends. Now contrast that with how Barry treated the people across the aisle during HIS first term. Or have you forgotten his "Elections have consequences...I won." speech to Eric Cantor? Republicans HAVE tried to block major parts of the Obama agenda but even a blinders wearing partisan like yourself has to admit that during his first year in office the Republicans COULDN'T block that agenda because Barry had super majorities in both the House and the Senate. The people that blocked Obama during THAT period of time were moderate Democrats.

You really want to argue economic policy with me? I'm still waiting to hear you explain to me what Barack Obama's economic policy "is". Care to take a stab at that?

Would ANY of you progressives care to take a crack at summing up what Barry's plan is to get the economy going again?

A tax raise that goes against the very Keynesian economic fundamentals that progressives have always put forth as the way to go?

A "jobs plan" that is simply a watered down version of his failed stimulus?

Come on guys...what IS Barry's plan to get the country going again?

I rewrote Reagan's economic policies? How so? I simply stated what his policies WERE. Would you care to dispute what I put forward? Did Reagan NOT first attack inflation by tightening up the money supply? Did he NOT get rid of Jimmy Carter's price controls on oil? Did he NOT then restructure the tax code and cut taxes?

I don't think you really CAN argue economics with me, Rshermr because A) you don't seem to have a basic understanding of the subject and B) you've let your politics blind you to reality.

I've asked this several times now and you and the rest of the Progressives on the board have avoided it like Superman avoids Kryptonite. What "is" Barry's economic plan to move the country forward? Since you claim to know so much about economics and are such a strong supporter of Obama then you obviously can list what the President is proposing to make the economy take off? Right? So let's hear it!

You know what you are, Rshermr? You're a poser. You come on this board and pretend to know about economics and history...spouting off about what Ronald Reagan did when HE was President...but when someone calls you on your nonsense you run away and hide. Pathetic...

"Sure" and "Wow"...that's the sum total of your response when challenged to back up your assertions, Rshermr?

You, my progressive friend are an intellectual "lightweight". Get back to me when you want to have a REAL discussion about economics. I'd love to hear you explain to me how Barry's call for higher taxes on the wealthy in the midst of an economic downturn is something that John Maynard Keynes EVER would have advocated. The rather ironic truth is that Ronald Reagan understood Keynesian economic principles better than Barack Obama does...because HE raised taxes after the economy started to rapidly expand. Keynes would have applauded that...he'd have asked Barack Obama what the heck he was thinking.

Reagan was facing stagflation...which is a combination of rampant inflation, a slow economy and high unemployment. Stagflation is especially difficult because the remedy for inflation will usually cause an even slower economy and higher unemployment. In many ways the economic puzzle that Reagan DID solve was harder than the one that Obama has utterly failed at.

What even a liberal economist like Christina Romer understood is that raising taxes on ANYONE in the midst of an economic slowdown isn't good economic policy because it will further slow down the economy.

I can only laugh at your contention that Barry is doing something about the deficit, Ooh. He just added another huge entitlement to a system that couldn't support the existing ones. He's running trillion dollar deficits each year that he's been in office and there's no end in sight. The truth is...Barack Obama isn't dealing with the deficit. It's the primary reason that our credit got downgraded. Even if he were successful in raising taxes on the wealthy doing so would only pay the exploding cost of our government for a few weeks. Of course he knows only too well that tax will never get through a GOP controlled House so it's quite obvious that it's just election year posturing. We need REAL solutions to our economic problems...not Kabuki theater from the man who's supposed to be leading us.

I'm amused by the progressive refrain that reducing taxes and government spending doesn't "work" to stimulate an economy. The truth is it ALWAYS works. You say it doesn't work for "obvious reasons" and then conveniently fail to disclose what those reasons ARE.

You make the flawed argument that government not having money to spend means that money is not being spent. What actually happens is that money is spent by the Private Sector INSTEAD of the Public Sector.

Did you really just make the assertion that in a good economy reducing taxes can have a good effect? You have no clue about Keynesian economic theory...do you? Keynes advocated the raising of taxes in economic boom times. He advocated doing so to both cool off an overheated economy but more importantly to repay the money that government would spend during an economic slowdown. Reducing taxes in a boom economy would lead to a bubble and burst economic cycle. If you're going to espouse Keynesian economic theory...don't you think you should familiarize yourself with it's basic principles? Duh?

Proof, oldstyle. Or do you not know what that means???

 

[antagon]

I want a fifteen foot graphite medium light action spinning rod! How many jobs did I just create?

About three kids in Cambodia just got hired.

 

[antagon]

Things with buying and selling belong in free markets, and that includes food, energy, and medicine. Any time governments try to manage food, energy, and medicine end up ruining them. Governments are for order, justice, and protecting the community. We don't ever want to buy and sell those. Both governments and markets must be guided but not be controlled by religions that provide charity and tell us right from wrong.

Three separate institutions.

I'd agree that some barbed wire and mines should be put up between those three.

My point is that the supply and demand for food, energy and healthcare are inescapable factors for the government, charities and private businesses to attend to. Gather a crowd of people and supply and demand starts playing out. I couldn't fathom any situation involving a population of humans where these basic factors can be ignored.

So those three items, health care, food and energy all share the characteristic of having inelastic demand. By definition, if the price of food goes up, you still will buy food. Maybe less expensive food, or less of it, but in general supply and demand change little with changes in price.
Then, you have the issue of monopoly power of suppliers of these goods. As consumers have fewer options in a market, suppliers can increase price without big changes in demand. Profit increases, price increases. Suppliers make more, consumers pay more. All three fit perfectly in into this category of the market.
Over the past year, prices of oil have gone up, then down, and now up again. As the prices went up the first time, about a year ago, supply was higher than it had been for years, and demand was lower than it had been for years. So, prices should have been going down, but the opposition was happening. Because monopoly power with inelastic demand was in place. And we have the highest health care cost in the world. And food prices keep rising.

Utilities are a real imperfect market. There's some oversight, but you can get screwed with that.

We only need healthcare since this bill, so that will get uglier. At the same time, the bill does construct a more perfect market for plans. Nothing will change for me.

So much impetus on inflation the last 5 years, its hard to pin food prices on inelasticity in the US food marketplace. Does that even apply well here?

 

[Oldstyle]

Why, oldstyle. Just shows you making accusations and statements without any proof at all. Just as I said. And, oldstyle, we can see what you and others said without your having you pick out the points you want people to see. Why you would want them to, I do not know. Do you have a point here. What I said is that you are incapable of backing up what you say, rather you simply make accusations. And you do not seem to know when you loose a point. Just ignorance, me boy. Stupidity, you see. But go on as long as you like. You are about to the point where you left the whole issue of economics behind. Funny thing is you seem to have left out the responses, oldstyle. Hate to show yourself getting crushed?. But that is old news, is it not. So, what is new, oldstyle. Just more editing the past to try to change it?? No integrity, oldstyle. No game.

You just accused me of not posting about economic issues, you blow hard. So I provided ample proof that in fact I had posted about economic issues REPEATEDLY. No game? I've kicked your butt throughout this string and will continue to do so. This is simply one more example.

Now would you like to try and back up your OTHER contention...that I lie? I asked you to provide a single example of a lie that I've told and as usual you've backed your assertion with nothing.

 

[Oldstyle]

As for your "claim" that I know nothing about economics and are incapable of posting to the subject? What's laughable about THAT is all someone has to do is go back through this string and look at the numerous posts that I made doing JUST THAT!!! Like the following...


The fact that you view taxes as a "profit", Lil...shows me how clueless you are when it comes to economics. Government does not make a profit. The Private Sector makes profits and then pays taxes on those profits.

When the Bush tax cuts took money out of the hands of government it left that money in the hands of the consumer to spend. Are you REALLY that slow that you can't see that?

Are you kidding? Your summation of what occurred during the Reagan Presidency was so full of factual errors and misinterpretations of what really happened as to be laughable.

Reaganomics Vs. Obamanomics: Facts And Figures - Forbes

The truth is...after getting the stagflation that Jimmy Carter left him under control (notice how Reagan actually DID something rather than just blame his predecessor?) cutting the inflation rate by half in only a couple years (which was the cause of higher unemployment by the way as he tightened up the money supply) Reagan cut taxes, cut government regulations and cut discretionary spending other than to the military. That set us up for the longest sustained period of time in our nation's history without a recession, creating vast amounts of wealth as we increased the size of our economy and added 20 million new jobs (not jobs "saved" but actual jobs CREATED!!!).

Now compare THAT to what Barack Obama has done since coming into office! Barry has never had a plan to fix the economy...he's just kept interest rates as low as he could by having the Fed pump out cash (which makes every dollar in our wallets worth less...a hidden Obama "tax") and kept as many of his union buddies and supporters in the Public Sector and the "Green Energy" sector flush with cash with his so called stimulus...while waiting for the economy to recover on it's own. "THAT" is Barry's plan!!! To do nothing to help the Private Sector and just hope that they can succeed despite him.

I don't think you know anything about what occurred during the Reagan presidency. Yes, Reagan cut taxes but he also broadened the tax base and aggressively closed tax loopholes and exemptions. It's basically the same approach that Paul Ryan was advocating. Unlike yourself, I actually know something about what I post here. You post things that you THINK you know about. The truth is...Reagan had an economic plan to get the country out to the recession he inherited from Jimmy Carter...a plan that he stuck to even when he took serious heat over a brief increase in the unemployment rate while he addressed inflation. Reagan showed real political courage.

Now would you like to explain to us what Barack Obama's economic plan is to get us out of the recession he inherited from W.? I say he hasn't had one since Larry Summers tucked tail and headed back to brainwash some more kids at Harvard about the "wonders" of Keynesian economics theory. Care to school me?
Ah...that's his plan to try and get "reelected", Ed...I think that even someone as clueless as Barry is about economics knows that neither green jobs nor tax the rich is going to get us out of this economic downturn. Those things are just smoke and mirrors to divert the electorate's attention away from how badly he's handled his job since taking over as President.

If Obama gets in for another four years we're going to grind along with 1 to 2% growth and with unemployment hovering somewhere around 8%.

If lower income taxes doesn't stimulate the economy then would you care to explain why both JFK and Reagan used them quite effectively to do just that? If getting rid of bad regulations doesn't stimulate the economy then perhaps you'd like to explain how Reagan's getting rid of the price controls on oil imposed by Jimmy Carter DIDN'T stimulate growth? You haven't given me a single example yet but you accuse "me" of slinging "vacuous con dogma"? The truth is...the person slinging it on here at the moment, is you. I'm not asking you to just "believe me"...I'm asking you to actually learn economic theory and apply it.

Reagan inherited an economy that was in full stagflation mode. He had to deal with both nasty unemployment AND rampant inflation. The REASON the unemployment level went to over 10% is that Reagan chose to first tackle inflation...tightening up the money supply. Doing so caused unemployment to rise (making Reagan's approval numbers plummet a year into his first term) but it was very effective in solving the inflation problem, cutting the rate of inflation in half within a two year period. You see, unlike Barry...Ronald Reagan did the nasty work that makes you unpopular but fixes the problems you have. Unlike Barry, Ronald Reagan had an economic plan and he stuck to it despite having to take a political hit.

By the way...the REASON that Reagan had a working relationship with the Democratically controlled Congress was that he treated his opposition with respect and worked WITH them. He and Tip O'Neal couldn't have been further apart ideologically but they were friends. Now contrast that with how Barry treated the people across the aisle during HIS first term. Or have you forgotten his "Elections have consequences...I won." speech to Eric Cantor? Republicans HAVE tried to block major parts of the Obama agenda but even a blinders wearing partisan like yourself has to admit that during his first year in office the Republicans COULDN'T block that agenda because Barry had super majorities in both the House and the Senate. The people that blocked Obama during THAT period of time were moderate Democrats.

You really want to argue economic policy with me? I'm still waiting to hear you explain to me what Barack Obama's economic policy "is". Care to take a stab at that?

Would ANY of you progressives care to take a crack at summing up what Barry's plan is to get the economy going again?

A tax raise that goes against the very Keynesian economic fundamentals that progressives have always put forth as the way to go?

A "jobs plan" that is simply a watered down version of his failed stimulus?

Come on guys...what IS Barry's plan to get the country going again?

I rewrote Reagan's economic policies? How so? I simply stated what his policies WERE. Would you care to dispute what I put forward? Did Reagan NOT first attack inflation by tightening up the money supply? Did he NOT get rid of Jimmy Carter's price controls on oil? Did he NOT then restructure the tax code and cut taxes?

I don't think you really CAN argue economics with me, Rshermr because A) you don't seem to have a basic understanding of the subject and B) you've let your politics blind you to reality.

I've asked this several times now and you and the rest of the Progressives on the board have avoided it like Superman avoids Kryptonite. What "is" Barry's economic plan to move the country forward? Since you claim to know so much about economics and are such a strong supporter of Obama then you obviously can list what the President is proposing to make the economy take off? Right? So let's hear it!

You know what you are, Rshermr? You're a poser. You come on this board and pretend to know about economics and history...spouting off about what Ronald Reagan did when HE was President...but when someone calls you on your nonsense you run away and hide. Pathetic...

"Sure" and "Wow"...that's the sum total of your response when challenged to back up your assertions, Rshermr?

You, my progressive friend are an intellectual "lightweight". Get back to me when you want to have a REAL discussion about economics. I'd love to hear you explain to me how Barry's call for higher taxes on the wealthy in the midst of an economic downturn is something that John Maynard Keynes EVER would have advocated. The rather ironic truth is that Ronald Reagan understood Keynesian economic principles better than Barack Obama does...because HE raised taxes after the economy started to rapidly expand. Keynes would have applauded that...he'd have asked Barack Obama what the heck he was thinking.

Reagan was facing stagflation...which is a combination of rampant inflation, a slow economy and high unemployment. Stagflation is especially difficult because the remedy for inflation will usually cause an even slower economy and higher unemployment. In many ways the economic puzzle that Reagan DID solve was harder than the one that Obama has utterly failed at.

What even a liberal economist like Christina Romer understood is that raising taxes on ANYONE in the midst of an economic slowdown isn't good economic policy because it will further slow down the economy.

I can only laugh at your contention that Barry is doing something about the deficit, Ooh. He just added another huge entitlement to a system that couldn't support the existing ones. He's running trillion dollar deficits each year that he's been in office and there's no end in sight. The truth is...Barack Obama isn't dealing with the deficit. It's the primary reason that our credit got downgraded. Even if he were successful in raising taxes on the wealthy doing so would only pay the exploding cost of our government for a few weeks. Of course he knows only too well that tax will never get through a GOP controlled House so it's quite obvious that it's just election year posturing. We need REAL solutions to our economic problems...not Kabuki theater from the man who's supposed to be leading us.

I'm amused by the progressive refrain that reducing taxes and government spending doesn't "work" to stimulate an economy. The truth is it ALWAYS works. You say it doesn't work for "obvious reasons" and then conveniently fail to disclose what those reasons ARE.

You make the flawed argument that government not having money to spend means that money is not being spent. What actually happens is that money is spent by the Private Sector INSTEAD of the Public Sector.

Did you really just make the assertion that in a good economy reducing taxes can have a good effect? You have no clue about Keynesian economic theory...do you? Keynes advocated the raising of taxes in economic boom times. He advocated doing so to both cool off an overheated economy but more importantly to repay the money that government would spend during an economic slowdown. Reducing taxes in a boom economy would lead to a bubble and burst economic cycle. If you're going to espouse Keynesian economic theory...don't you think you should familiarize yourself with it's basic principles? Duh?

Proof, oldstyle. Or do you not know what that means???

How much "proof" that I was here discussing economics do you need? I can go back and get more. That was what I posted in the first part of this string. What's amusing is that you ask for proof from someone who has provided lots...when you haven't provided ANY!

 

[Rshermr]

As for your "claim" that I know nothing about economics and are incapable of posting to the subject? What's laughable about THAT is all someone has to do is go back through this string and look at the numerous posts that I made doing JUST THAT!!! Like the following...


The fact that you view taxes as a "profit", Lil...shows me how clueless you are when it comes to economics. Government does not make a profit. The Private Sector makes profits and then pays taxes on those profits.

When the Bush tax cuts took money out of the hands of government it left that money in the hands of the consumer to spend. Are you REALLY that slow that you can't see that?

Are you kidding? Your summation of what occurred during the Reagan Presidency was so full of factual errors and misinterpretations of what really happened as to be laughable.

Reaganomics Vs. Obamanomics: Facts And Figures - Forbes

The truth is...after getting the stagflation that Jimmy Carter left him under control (notice how Reagan actually DID something rather than just blame his predecessor?) cutting the inflation rate by half in only a couple years (which was the cause of higher unemployment by the way as he tightened up the money supply) Reagan cut taxes, cut government regulations and cut discretionary spending other than to the military. That set us up for the longest sustained period of time in our nation's history without a recession, creating vast amounts of wealth as we increased the size of our economy and added 20 million new jobs (not jobs "saved" but actual jobs CREATED!!!).

Now compare THAT to what Barack Obama has done since coming into office! Barry has never had a plan to fix the economy...he's just kept interest rates as low as he could by having the Fed pump out cash (which makes every dollar in our wallets worth less...a hidden Obama "tax") and kept as many of his union buddies and supporters in the Public Sector and the "Green Energy" sector flush with cash with his so called stimulus...while waiting for the economy to recover on it's own. "THAT" is Barry's plan!!! To do nothing to help the Private Sector and just hope that they can succeed despite him.

I don't think you know anything about what occurred during the Reagan presidency. Yes, Reagan cut taxes but he also broadened the tax base and aggressively closed tax loopholes and exemptions. It's basically the same approach that Paul Ryan was advocating. Unlike yourself, I actually know something about what I post here. You post things that you THINK you know about. The truth is...Reagan had an economic plan to get the country out to the recession he inherited from Jimmy Carter...a plan that he stuck to even when he took serious heat over a brief increase in the unemployment rate while he addressed inflation. Reagan showed real political courage.

Now would you like to explain to us what Barack Obama's economic plan is to get us out of the recession he inherited from W.? I say he hasn't had one since Larry Summers tucked tail and headed back to brainwash some more kids at Harvard about the "wonders" of Keynesian economics theory. Care to school me?
Ah...that's his plan to try and get "reelected", Ed...I think that even someone as clueless as Barry is about economics knows that neither green jobs nor tax the rich is going to get us out of this economic downturn. Those things are just smoke and mirrors to divert the electorate's attention away from how badly he's handled his job since taking over as President.

If Obama gets in for another four years we're going to grind along with 1 to 2% growth and with unemployment hovering somewhere around 8%.

If lower income taxes doesn't stimulate the economy then would you care to explain why both JFK and Reagan used them quite effectively to do just that? If getting rid of bad regulations doesn't stimulate the economy then perhaps you'd like to explain how Reagan's getting rid of the price controls on oil imposed by Jimmy Carter DIDN'T stimulate growth? You haven't given me a single example yet but you accuse "me" of slinging "vacuous con dogma"? The truth is...the person slinging it on here at the moment, is you. I'm not asking you to just "believe me"...I'm asking you to actually learn economic theory and apply it.

Reagan inherited an economy that was in full stagflation mode. He had to deal with both nasty unemployment AND rampant inflation. The REASON the unemployment level went to over 10% is that Reagan chose to first tackle inflation...tightening up the money supply. Doing so caused unemployment to rise (making Reagan's approval numbers plummet a year into his first term) but it was very effective in solving the inflation problem, cutting the rate of inflation in half within a two year period. You see, unlike Barry...Ronald Reagan did the nasty work that makes you unpopular but fixes the problems you have. Unlike Barry, Ronald Reagan had an economic plan and he stuck to it despite having to take a political hit.

By the way...the REASON that Reagan had a working relationship with the Democratically controlled Congress was that he treated his opposition with respect and worked WITH them. He and Tip O'Neal couldn't have been further apart ideologically but they were friends. Now contrast that with how Barry treated the people across the aisle during HIS first term. Or have you forgotten his "Elections have consequences...I won." speech to Eric Cantor? Republicans HAVE tried to block major parts of the Obama agenda but even a blinders wearing partisan like yourself has to admit that during his first year in office the Republicans COULDN'T block that agenda because Barry had super majorities in both the House and the Senate. The people that blocked Obama during THAT period of time were moderate Democrats.

You really want to argue economic policy with me? I'm still waiting to hear you explain to me what Barack Obama's economic policy "is". Care to take a stab at that?

Would ANY of you progressives care to take a crack at summing up what Barry's plan is to get the economy going again?

A tax raise that goes against the very Keynesian economic fundamentals that progressives have always put forth as the way to go?

A "jobs plan" that is simply a watered down version of his failed stimulus?

Come on guys...what IS Barry's plan to get the country going again?

I rewrote Reagan's economic policies? How so? I simply stated what his policies WERE. Would you care to dispute what I put forward? Did Reagan NOT first attack inflation by tightening up the money supply? Did he NOT get rid of Jimmy Carter's price controls on oil? Did he NOT then restructure the tax code and cut taxes?

I don't think you really CAN argue economics with me, Rshermr because A) you don't seem to have a basic understanding of the subject and B) you've let your politics blind you to reality.

I've asked this several times now and you and the rest of the Progressives on the board have avoided it like Superman avoids Kryptonite. What "is" Barry's economic plan to move the country forward? Since you claim to know so much about economics and are such a strong supporter of Obama then you obviously can list what the President is proposing to make the economy take off? Right? So let's hear it!

You know what you are, Rshermr? You're a poser. You come on this board and pretend to know about economics and history...spouting off about what Ronald Reagan did when HE was President...but when someone calls you on your nonsense you run away and hide. Pathetic...

"Sure" and "Wow"...that's the sum total of your response when challenged to back up your assertions, Rshermr?

You, my progressive friend are an intellectual "lightweight". Get back to me when you want to have a REAL discussion about economics. I'd love to hear you explain to me how Barry's call for higher taxes on the wealthy in the midst of an economic downturn is something that John Maynard Keynes EVER would have advocated. The rather ironic truth is that Ronald Reagan understood Keynesian economic principles better than Barack Obama does...because HE raised taxes after the economy started to rapidly expand. Keynes would have applauded that...he'd have asked Barack Obama what the heck he was thinking.

Reagan was facing stagflation...which is a combination of rampant inflation, a slow economy and high unemployment. Stagflation is especially difficult because the remedy for inflation will usually cause an even slower economy and higher unemployment. In many ways the economic puzzle that Reagan DID solve was harder than the one that Obama has utterly failed at.

What even a liberal economist like Christina Romer understood is that raising taxes on ANYONE in the midst of an economic slowdown isn't good economic policy because it will further slow down the economy.

I can only laugh at your contention that Barry is doing something about the deficit, Ooh. He just added another huge entitlement to a system that couldn't support the existing ones. He's running trillion dollar deficits each year that he's been in office and there's no end in sight. The truth is...Barack Obama isn't dealing with the deficit. It's the primary reason that our credit got downgraded. Even if he were successful in raising taxes on the wealthy doing so would only pay the exploding cost of our government for a few weeks. Of course he knows only too well that tax will never get through a GOP controlled House so it's quite obvious that it's just election year posturing. We need REAL solutions to our economic problems...not Kabuki theater from the man who's supposed to be leading us.

I'm amused by the progressive refrain that reducing taxes and government spending doesn't "work" to stimulate an economy. The truth is it ALWAYS works. You say it doesn't work for "obvious reasons" and then conveniently fail to disclose what those reasons ARE.

You make the flawed argument that government not having money to spend means that money is not being spent. What actually happens is that money is spent by the Private Sector INSTEAD of the Public Sector.

Did you really just make the assertion that in a good economy reducing taxes can have a good effect? You have no clue about Keynesian economic theory...do you? Keynes advocated the raising of taxes in economic boom times. He advocated doing so to both cool off an overheated economy but more importantly to repay the money that government would spend during an economic slowdown. Reducing taxes in a boom economy would lead to a bubble and burst economic cycle. If you're going to espouse Keynesian economic theory...don't you think you should familiarize yourself with it's basic principles? Duh?

Proof, oldstyle. Or do you not know what that means???

How much "proof" that I was here discussing economics do you need? I can go back and get more. That was what I posted in the first part of this string. What's amusing is that you ask for proof from someone who has provided lots...when you haven't provided ANY!

oldstyle, you are such a typical con. you make statements, and believe that you have said something that is true. What you have done, and proven by doing your massive cut and paste, is to show that your accusations have absolutely NO proof to them. The one reference you made was to a right wing talker who has never said anything that is not approved by his right wing owners. nice job of finding impartial sources, oldstyle. So, you think you offered some proof. i must have missed it. And, relative to kicking my but, you are truly delusional. What point was it that my but was kicked by, me boy? i must have missed it. you do not know economics from your but.
And oldstyle, me boy, i did not say you did not post economic issues, what i said is that you post without any proof to back up your accusations. Which you have just shown. And that you had spent a lot of time just with personal attacks. Which you deny. But by reposting this drivel, you have proven that you do attack, oldstyle, all the time.
When i asked any proof, i forgot that you were a con. Con's do not post proof. They believe that any drivel they copy from some right wing sight is beyond reproach. So, you post drivel, and do not defend it with independent proof. Get it yet, oldstyle? it is a time proven way to discuss stuff, and to try to prove your statements. not using a single source, a right wing con himself, as proof. And not copying and pasting a good deal of that persons drivel, as "proof". i know this is novel to you, but it is how you look at issues in rational economic discussions.

 

[ccravens]

Oldstyle has continually owned you with economic facts.

You are either too stupid or too blind to see.

Why he keeps feeding you is beyond me.

 

[Rshermr]

Oldstyle has continually owned you with economic facts.

You are either too stupid or too blind to see.

Why he keeps feeding you is beyond me.

cravens, you and oldstyle are like two peas in a pod. Both ignorant of economics. Both post con dogma without proof of anything. pitiful soals, living like that. As you can see, i do so respect your opinion,

this may help;
The right's stupidity spreads, enabled by a too-polite left | George Monbiot | Comment is free | The Guardian

 

[Oldstyle]

Proof, oldstyle. Or do you not know what that means???

How much "proof" that I was here discussing economics do you need? I can go back and get more. That was what I posted in the first part of this string. What's amusing is that you ask for proof from someone who has provided lots...when you haven't provided ANY!

oldstyle, you are such a typical con. you make statements, and believe that you have said something that is true. What you have done, and proven by doing your massive cut and paste, is to show that your accusations have absolutely NO proof to them. The one reference you made was to a right wing talker who has never said anything that is not approved by his right wing owners. nice job of finding impartial sources, oldstyle. So, you think you offered some proof. i must have missed it. And, relative to kicking my but, you are truly delusional. What point was it that my but was kicked by, me boy? i must have missed it. you do not know economics from your but.
And oldstyle, me boy, i did not say you did not post economic issues, what i said is that you post without any proof to back up your accusations. Which you have just shown. And that you had spent a lot of time just with personal attacks. Which you deny. But by reposting this drivel, you have proven that you do attack, oldstyle, all the time.
When i asked any proof, i forgot that you were a con. Con's do not post proof. They believe that any drivel they copy from some right wing sight is beyond reproach. So, you post drivel, and do not defend it with independent proof. Get it yet, oldstyle? it is a time proven way to discuss stuff, and to try to prove your statements. not using a single source, a right wing con himself, as proof. And not copying and pasting a good deal of that persons drivel, as "proof". i know this is novel to you, but it is how you look at issues in rational economic discussions.

I'm still waiting for you to give me a single example of where I've told a lie. I'm still waiting for you to tell me a single instance where my understanding of Keynesian economics is flawed or where my history of economics in this country is wrong. You've TRIED...like when you brought up the 11 tax increases during Reagan's two terms but if you remember I shoved that right down your throat by pointing out that the Democrats controlled the House during all of Reagan's two terms and the Senate for two of those years. Unlike you I don't NEED to cut and paste the work of others to argue economics because I actually learned something about it while I was in school and I can give you examples off the top of my head.

You're pathetic...you were getting your ass handed to you so badly in this string that you had to resort to lying about teaching economics in college to try and bolster your viewpoint but you are so stupid that you didn't realize that undergrads don't teach other undergrads. Ever since you got caught at THAT lie you've resorted to name calling and evasion.

The truth is...if you really HAD taught at a college you would have ZERO reason not to relate where and when that took place. You're not doing so because you CAN'T. You're not doing so because it never happened.