Republicans are clueless when it comes to fixing the economy

[Toddsterpatriot]

LOL this is prove you have no idea how this works. What this graph is saying is that every government dollar spent on UE and food stamps creates 1.71 in economic growth. That is what makes it a gain. Tax cuts on the other hand are a loss in dollars.

What this graph is saying is that every government dollar spent on UE and food stamps creates 1.71 in economic growth.

And I'm saying you can't prove it.
If the "extra dollar" in spending creates that GDP, the "dollar less" spending, because you taxed it away from someone, would likewise cost that same amount of GDP.
Even more, because government is so damn inefficient.

That is why it is so important the wealthy be taxed the most. The middle class spending is what creates the most demand.

Because government knows how to spend better than the wealthy.
And the inefficiency!!!

 

[The Rabbi]

It works because when poor people receive money they spend it immediately on basic necessities like food clothing and shelter. That is what makes the economic growth so effective.

There has been no economic growth. The multiplier effect is zero.
Why the Fiscal Multiplier is Roughly Zero | Mercatus

Lol do you even read the crap you post? This article says nothing about the economic stimulators I cited. I know you are desperate and will do anything to win an argument which includes random Googling, but this is pathetic.

Do you understand why they are considered "economic stimulators"? IF so then you know why I posted what I did. If not, then you are way too ignorant to be engaging here.

 

[The Rabbi]

LOL this is prove you have no idea how this works. What this graph is saying is that every government dollar spent on UE and food stamps creates 1.71 in economic growth. That is what makes it a gain. Tax cuts on the other hand are a loss in dollars.

What this graph is saying is that every government dollar spent on UE and food stamps creates 1.71 in economic growth.

And I'm saying you can't prove it.
If the "extra dollar" in spending creates that GDP, the "dollar less" spending, because you taxed it away from someone, would likewise cost that same amount of GDP.
Even more, because government is so damn inefficient.

That is why it is so important the wealthy be taxed the most. The middle class spending is what creates the most demand.

No it does not. Business investment creates demand.

 

[The Rabbi]

Yep, we all saw how handing money over to our Financial Institutions worked out so well.

It did work out well. The U.S. received a windfall from the banks that borrowed money. Where have you been?

Obama spent most of 2009 and a good deal of 2010 trying to get banks to make loans.
Do you ever read anything other than your palm?

Obama did nothing of the kind. Even if he did, so what? How does that refute what I wrote, that the US got back more from the banks than they loaned them?

 

[Missouri_Mike]

My link didn't work right. Read this.

As you can see food stamps and unemployment insurance are the most effective economic stimulators. You see poor people who would otherwise be not spending money are spending money. Every dollar spent on these programs creates economic growth. Tax cuts on the other hand only slow the economy. Extending unemployment insurance was the heart of Obama's stimulus package. That is why it created 2.5 million jobs. The more facts we learn the more we realize just how much bullshit republicanism really is.

Why Extended Federal Unemployment Benefits Boost the Economy

I'm not sure who is dumber. You or the author of the article. I'm leaning toward you for believing this shit.

As a result, every dollar spent on unemployment benefits stimulates $1.64 in economic demand, according to a Moody's Economy.com study. How can $1 create $1.64? That's because of the ripple effect. For example, a dollar spent at the grocery store pays not only for the food, but also helps pay the clerk's salary, the truckers who haul the food, and even the farmer who grew it. They also buy groceries with their salaries, which pays more staff, and on it goes.

What a load of crap. A dollar spent in retail can't possibly inflate itself beyond that dollars end value. If it did then the clerks, truckers and the farmers all had to lose money to bring that dollar item to the consumer.

To provide a dollar item at the store all of those that contributed to the item must have their costs and profit when added up all fall within that dollar. If they can't do that the item must be sold for more money. That means the store has to stock the item, shelve it, pay a cashier and make profit on a portion of that dollar. The trucker has to pay for a driver, the rig, the insurance, the road taxes and profit within a portion of that same dollar. The farmer must also abide by the same guidelines all within a small portion of that dollar.

At no point in this chain can anyone involved exceed that dollar by a single penny let alone another 64 cents. If that happens one or all of them lose money and go out of business.

 

[Billy000]

There has been no economic growth. The multiplier effect is zero.
Why the Fiscal Multiplier is Roughly Zero | Mercatus

Lol do you even read the crap you post? This article says nothing about the economic stimulators I cited. I know you are desperate and will do anything to win an argument which includes random Googling, but this is pathetic.

Do you understand why they are considered "economic stimulators"? IF so then you know why I posted what I did. If not, then you are way too ignorant to be engaging here.

What your article is saying is that demand side economic stimulators like tax rebates are ineffective because of the interest that accrues on government debt. What my graph shows is that stimulators like EU, food stamps, and infrastructure create economic growth rather than zero sum. They stimulate economic growth because of how fast the money is used and what it is spent on. EU and food stamps are not zero sum because when poor people receive extra cash, they spend it QUICKLY on basic needs like food, clothing and shelter. Immediate economic growth through spending. The interest that accrues on this gov spending is not enough to offset the economic growth.

 

[The Rabbi]

Lol do you even read the crap you post? This article says nothing about the economic stimulators I cited. I know you are desperate and will do anything to win an argument which includes random Googling, but this is pathetic.

Do you understand why they are considered "economic stimulators"? IF so then you know why I posted what I did. If not, then you are way too ignorant to be engaging here.

What your article is saying is that demand side economic stimulators like tax rebates are ineffective because of the interest that accrues on government debt. What my graph shows is that stimulators like EU, food stamps, and infrastructure create economic growth rather than zero sum. They stimulate economic growth because of how fast the money is used and what it is spent on. EU and food stamps are not zero sum because when poor people receive extra cash, they spend it QUICKLY on basic needs like food, clothing and shelter. Immediate economic growth through spending. The interest that accrues on this gov spending is not enough to offset the economic growth.

My article does not say that.
But you are correct that your argument rests on a multiplier effect of comsumer spending. But as my article did show, there is no multiplier effect. Ergo your chart is wrong.

 

[Billy000]

My link didn't work right. Read this.

As you can see food stamps and unemployment insurance are the most effective economic stimulators. You see poor people who would otherwise be not spending money are spending money. Every dollar spent on these programs creates economic growth. Tax cuts on the other hand only slow the economy. Extending unemployment insurance was the heart of Obama's stimulus package. That is why it created 2.5 million jobs. The more facts we learn the more we realize just how much bullshit republicanism really is.

Why Extended Federal Unemployment Benefits Boost the Economy

I'm not sure who is dumber. You or the author of the article. I'm leaning toward you for believing this shit.

As a result, every dollar spent on unemployment benefits stimulates $1.64 in economic demand, according to a Moody's Economy.com study. How can $1 create $1.64? That's because of the ripple effect. For example, a dollar spent at the grocery store pays not only for the food, but also helps pay the clerk's salary, the truckers who haul the food, and even the farmer who grew it. They also buy groceries with their salaries, which pays more staff, and on it goes.

What a load of crap. A dollar spent in retail can't possibly inflate itself beyond that dollars end value. If it did then the clerks, truckers and the farmers all had to lose money to bring that dollar item to the consumer.

To provide a dollar item at the store all of those that contributed to the item must have their costs and profit when added up all fall within that dollar. If they can't do that the item must be sold for more money. That means the store has to stock the item, shelve it, pay a cashier and make profit on a portion of that dollar. The trucker has to pay for a driver, the rig, the insurance, the road taxes and profit within a portion of that same dollar. The farmer must also abide by the same guidelines all within a small portion of that dollar.

At no point in this chain can anyone involved exceed that dollar by a single penny let alone another 64 cents. If that happens one or all of them lose money and go out of business.

You clearly arent understand this. This article is not saying spending a single dollar at a single store is going to create growth for that particular business. What this article is saying is that because the dollar is spent so quickly in the general market, that creates a stimulus. It has nothing to do with a dollar spent on individual stores. It's the market in general.

Clearly you do not understand capitalism. If it was all zero sum, why would economists be so concerned about consumer spending? Consumer spending creates economic growth. Free market 101.

 

[The Rabbi]

My link didn't work right. Read this.

I'm not sure who is dumber. You or the author of the article. I'm leaning toward you for believing this shit.



What a load of crap. A dollar spent in retail can't possibly inflate itself beyond that dollars end value. If it did then the clerks, truckers and the farmers all had to lose money to bring that dollar item to the consumer.

To provide a dollar item at the store all of those that contributed to the item must have their costs and profit when added up all fall within that dollar. If they can't do that the item must be sold for more money. That means the store has to stock the item, shelve it, pay a cashier and make profit on a portion of that dollar. The trucker has to pay for a driver, the rig, the insurance, the road taxes and profit within a portion of that same dollar. The farmer must also abide by the same guidelines all within a small portion of that dollar.

At no point in this chain can anyone involved exceed that dollar by a single penny let alone another 64 cents. If that happens one or all of them lose money and go out of business.

You clearly arent understand this. This article is not saying spending a single dollar at a single store is going to create growth for that particular business. What this article is saying is that because the dollar is spent so quickly in the general market, that creates a stimulus. It has nothing to do with a dollar spent on individual stores. It's the market in general.

Clearly you do not understand capitalism. If it was all zero sum, why would economists be so concerned about consumer spending? Consumer spending creates economic growth. Free market 101.

No it doesnt. That is not Free Market 101. That is lib.econ 101 , and a demonstrated failure.

 

[Billy000]

Do you understand why they are considered "economic stimulators"? IF so then you know why I posted what I did. If not, then you are way too ignorant to be engaging here.

What your article is saying is that demand side economic stimulators like tax rebates are ineffective because of the interest that accrues on government debt. What my graph shows is that stimulators like EU, food stamps, and infrastructure create economic growth rather than zero sum. They stimulate economic growth because of how fast the money is used and what it is spent on. EU and food stamps are not zero sum because when poor people receive extra cash, they spend it QUICKLY on basic needs like food, clothing and shelter. Immediate economic growth through spending. The interest that accrues on this gov spending is not enough to offset the economic growth.

My article does not say that.
But you are correct that your argument rests on a multiplier effect of comsumer spending. But as my article did show, there is no multiplier effect. Ergo your chart is wrong.

No the only example it gives is tax rebates. People who receive a rebate from the government do not spend that money immediately like they would poor people who receive EU or food stamps. Those people spend their money IMMEDIATELY.

 

[Billy000]

My link didn't work right. Read this.

You clearly arent understand this. This article is not saying spending a single dollar at a single store is going to create growth for that particular business. What this article is saying is that because the dollar is spent so quickly in the general market, that creates a stimulus. It has nothing to do with a dollar spent on individual stores. It's the market in general.

Clearly you do not understand capitalism. If it was all zero sum, why would economists be so concerned about consumer spending? Consumer spending creates economic growth. Free market 101.

No it doesnt. That is not Free Market 101. That is lib.econ 101 , and a demonstrated failure.

So youre saying consumer spending is not important? Really? Consumer spending stimulates growth as long as it is spent on the right products and is spent quickly.

 

[The Rabbi]

What your article is saying is that demand side economic stimulators like tax rebates are ineffective because of the interest that accrues on government debt. What my graph shows is that stimulators like EU, food stamps, and infrastructure create economic growth rather than zero sum. They stimulate economic growth because of how fast the money is used and what it is spent on. EU and food stamps are not zero sum because when poor people receive extra cash, they spend it QUICKLY on basic needs like food, clothing and shelter. Immediate economic growth through spending. The interest that accrues on this gov spending is not enough to offset the economic growth.

My article does not say that.
But you are correct that your argument rests on a multiplier effect of comsumer spending. But as my article did show, there is no multiplier effect. Ergo your chart is wrong.

No the only example it gives is tax rebates. People who receive a rebate from the government do not spend that money immediately like they would poor people who receive EU or food stamps. Those people spend their money IMMEDIATELY.

It makes no difference whether they spend it immediately or wait. There is no multiplier to their spending. This is obvious.

 

[The Rabbi]

You clearly arent understand this. This article is not saying spending a single dollar at a single store is going to create growth for that particular business. What this article is saying is that because the dollar is spent so quickly in the general market, that creates a stimulus. It has nothing to do with a dollar spent on individual stores. It's the market in general.

Clearly you do not understand capitalism. If it was all zero sum, why would economists be so concerned about consumer spending? Consumer spending creates economic growth. Free market 101.

No it doesnt. That is not Free Market 101. That is lib.econ 101 , and a demonstrated failure.

So youre saying consumer spending is not important? Really? Consumer spending stimulates growth as long as it is spent on the right products and is spent quickly.

No, consumer spending does not stimulate growth. Business investment stimulates growth.

 

[Billy000]

No it doesnt. That is not Free Market 101. That is lib.econ 101 , and a demonstrated failure.

So youre saying consumer spending is not important? Really? Consumer spending stimulates growth as long as it is spent on the right products and is spent quickly.

No, consumer spending does not stimulate growth. Business investment stimulates growth.

Investment is important but it is only as good as the demand that is created out of it. That is how our economic system works.

 

[Billy000]

My article does not say that.
But you are correct that your argument rests on a multiplier effect of comsumer spending. But as my article did show, there is no multiplier effect. Ergo your chart is wrong.

No the only example it gives is tax rebates. People who receive a rebate from the government do not spend that money immediately like they would poor people who receive EU or food stamps. Those people spend their money IMMEDIATELY.

It makes no difference whether they spend it immediately or wait. There is no multiplier to their spending. This is obvious.

My article explains the difference in effect between tax rebates and EU and food stamp spending. Yours does not. It does not account for specific uses of consumer spending.

 

[The Rabbi]

So youre saying consumer spending is not important? Really? Consumer spending stimulates growth as long as it is spent on the right products and is spent quickly.

No, consumer spending does not stimulate growth. Business investment stimulates growth.

Investment is important but it is only as good as the demand that is created out of it. That is how our economic system works.

No, that is not true. Business invesmtent stimulates the economy, increasing efficiency, bringing new products, and lowering costs. Consumer demand is relatively unimportant for growth.
Don't worry. Most of Obama's economic advisors believe just like you do. That's why their policies have faiiled decisively over the last 5 years.

 

[The Rabbi]

No the only example it gives is tax rebates. People who receive a rebate from the government do not spend that money immediately like they would poor people who receive EU or food stamps. Those people spend their money IMMEDIATELY.

It makes no difference whether they spend it immediately or wait. There is no multiplier to their spending. This is obvious.

My article explains the difference in effect between tax rebates and EU and food stamp spending. Yours does not. It does not account for specific uses of consumer spending.

It lays out that the spending multiplier is zero. Which is the only refutation needed for your chart.

 

[Billy000]

No, consumer spending does not stimulate growth. Business investment stimulates growth.

Investment is important but it is only as good as the demand that is created out of it. That is how our economic system works.

No, that is not true. Business invesmtent stimulates the economy, increasing efficiency, bringing new products, and lowering costs. Consumer demand is relatively unimportant for growth.
Don't worry. Most of Obama's economic advisors believe just like you do. That's why their policies have faiiled decisively over the last 5 years.

Think about what you are saying. Lowering costs and bringing in new products means dick if people are not spending adequate money to meet the spike in supply. Corporate profits are at an all time high. Tell me, where are the jobs?

 

[Harry Dresden]

Um okay prove it is bullshit. Go ahead. Ill wait.

You posted it. Prove it isn't.

But it's pretty easy. It assumes that there is a "multiplier" so when government spends one dollar it magically becomes $1.50 or something in overall economic benefit.
But there is no multiplier. One dollar can only be spent by the government if it is taken away from some productive use. You dont see the lack of productive spending of that dollar, only what the gov't spends.
For actual proof: we have spent more on UE and food stamps in the last 5 years than at any other time. ANd we have the worst economic performance post war to show for it. It clearly does not work.
QED.

Why Extended Federal Unemployment Benefits Boost the Economy

how long should UE be Billy?.....there has to be a cutoff.....

 

[Billy000]

You posted it. Prove it isn't.

But it's pretty easy. It assumes that there is a "multiplier" so when government spends one dollar it magically becomes $1.50 or something in overall economic benefit.
But there is no multiplier. One dollar can only be spent by the government if it is taken away from some productive use. You dont see the lack of productive spending of that dollar, only what the gov't spends.
For actual proof: we have spent more on UE and food stamps in the last 5 years than at any other time. ANd we have the worst economic performance post war to show for it. It clearly does not work.
QED.

Why Extended Federal Unemployment Benefits Boost the Economy

how long should UE be Billy?.....there has to be a cutoff.....

Yeah there should be a cutoff. Of course there is only a million people even on EU. There really is no harm in extending it.