Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
It's not. Consumer Spending is already 71% of GDP. Where should it be before we get to the point of it 'helping.' 75%? 80%?
I'll just accept the fact that your another economic illiterate passing off GDP as a bogus metric, and you can be on your merry way.
I would think, being the economic genius that you are, that you would realize that consumer spending can increase without it's percentage of GDP changing. Just like it could go down while the percentage of GDP could go up.
Also while consumer spending is 70% of our economy, it can have a positive effect on the rest of our economy.
She commits classic fallacy by thinking about economy as she would think about a household. A family facing financial hardship reduces spending -- and it works because lower spending has no effect on family income.
But the same is not true about economy as a whole. Spending and incomes are related, because someone's income is always someone else's spending. Lower aggregate spending inevitably leads to lower aggregate income, deeper recession and higher unemployment.
Suggesting that as a cure is stupid.
I would think, being the economic genius that you are, that you would realize that consumer spending can increase without it's percentage of GDP changing. Just like it could go down while the percentage of GDP could go up.
Also while consumer spending is 70% of our economy, it can have a positive effect on the rest of our economy.
She commits classic fallacy by thinking about economy as she would think about a household. A family facing financial hardship reduces spending -- and it works because lower spending has no effect on family income.
But the same is not true about economy as a whole. Spending and incomes are related, because someone's income is always someone else's spending. Lower aggregate spending inevitably leads to lower aggregate income, deeper recession and higher unemployment.
Suggesting that as a cure is stupid.
if you are talking about consumer spending, you are correct. If you are talking about government spending, you are totally wrong.
The government cannot spend any money unless it either: takes it from us in taxes, borrows it, or prints it. The govt does not just HAVE money to spend, why don't you libs understand that?
I would think, being the economic genius that you are, that you would realize that consumer spending can increase without it's percentage of GDP changing. Just like it could go down while the percentage of GDP could go up.
Also while consumer spending is 70% of our economy, it can have a positive effect on the rest of our economy.
She commits classic fallacy by thinking about economy as she would think about a household. A family facing financial hardship reduces spending -- and it works because lower spending has no effect on family income.
But the same is not true about economy as a whole. Spending and incomes are related, because someone's income is always someone else's spending. Lower aggregate spending inevitably leads to lower aggregate income, deeper recession and higher unemployment.
Suggesting that as a cure is stupid.
if you are talking about consumer spending, you are correct. If you are talking about government spending, you are totally wrong.
The government cannot spend any money unless it either: takes it from us in taxes, borrows it, or prints it. The govt does not just HAVE money to spend, why don't you libs understand that?
I would think, being the economic genius that you are, that you would realize that consumer spending can increase without it's percentage of GDP changing. Just like it could go down while the percentage of GDP could go up.
Also while consumer spending is 70% of our economy, it can have a positive effect on the rest of our economy.
I would think, being the economic genius that you are, that you would realize that consumer spending can increase without it's percentage of GDP changing. Just like it could go down while the percentage of GDP could go up.
What it can do is irrelevant. Consumer spending is the highest level it's even been. Pretty similar to Pre-crisis levels, even asset bubble levels. The point of the statistics was to get you to understand that America does not have a spending problem. It was merely a small note in hopes that you'll think about what you are saying.
Perhaps it was too subtle for you.
Also while consumer spending is 70% of our economy, it can have a positive effect on the rest of our economy.
Except you don't drive an economy based on spending. The general problem is that you site GDP as the be all indicator of economic health, without understanding why the metric was created, or without actually learning economics in the first place.
That is true. Here are the figures for the debt held by public. You can see clearly how it was falling at the end of Clinton years:
Percentage changes are not the same as Spending Levels.
It's time to spend more on infrastructure, to increase growth ... something cons can't grasp.
well, whooop dee doo !!
what about the DEBT ?
still over $16,000,000,000,000,000
and the libs/democrats just keepthe debt hole deeper and deeper.
Yep. Thats all they do is dig...dig...dig...since they don't seem to know how to count.
No.
Debt held by the public relative to GDP rose rapidly again in the 1980s. President Ronald Reagan's economic policies lowered tax rates and increased military spending, while congressional Democrats held fast against attempts to reverse spending on social programs.[12][13] As a result, debt as a share of GDP increased from 26.2% in 1980 to 40.9% in 1988, and continued to rise during the presidency of George H. W. Bush, reaching 48.3% of GDP in 1992.[10][14]
Debt held by the public reached 49.5% of GDP at the beginning of President Clinton's first term. However, it fell to 34.5% of GDP by the end of Clinton's presidency due in part to decreased military spending, increased taxes (in 1990, 1993 and 1997), and increased tax revenue resulting from the Dot-com bubble.[[/B]10][11][15][16][17] The budget controls instituted in the 1990s successfully restrained fiscal action by the Congress and the President and together with economic growth contributed to the budget surpluses at the end of the decade.[18]
In the early 21st century, debt relative to GDP rose again due in part to the Bush tax cuts and increased military spending caused by the wars in the Middle-East and a new entitlement Medicare D program. During the presidency of George W. Bush, debt held by the public increased from $3.339 trillion in September 2001 to $6.369 trillion by the end of 2008,
National debt of the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I am willing to forget the fact that you confused Debt to GDP with Total Public Debt Outstanding IF you point out where the surplus is:
09/30/1997 - 5,413,146,011,397.34
09/30/1998 - 5,526,193,008,897.62
09/30/1999 - 5,656,270,901,615.43
09/30/2000 - 5,674,178,209,886.86
09/30/2001 - 5,807,463,412,200.06
Government - Historical Debt Outstanding - Annual 1950 - 1999
Government - Historical Debt Outstanding - Annual 2000 - 2012
Never seen a budget surplus which increases the national debt. Not only for just one year, but for three years of a 'surplus.' Strange anomaly that was...
No, I didn't confuse anything. I changed it to red type above, so you wouldn't miss it this time. Apparently you are the one that is confusing Deficit/Surplus with the Debt. You and many conservatives try to use the Treasury figures as proof that there was no surplus, but the fact is that the government took in more money than it spent for four straight years - that is a Surplus.
When it spends more than it takes in, it is a Deficit. The Debt is a different matter.
You probably need a refresher course in government accounting. Receipts into any federal trust fund INCREASE the public debt, they do not reduce it. Due to the funds being immediately invested in Treasury securities so they can earn interest until that time when they are obligated and expended. Any issuance of Treasury securities increases the public debt. When spent/layed out Treasury securities are redeemed by the trust funds and the cash is used to fund the outlays authorized. This causes public debt to go down. Thus, an increase in debt associated with these trust funds is evidence of a SURPLUS of taxes and other receipts over expenditures made.
You are "confused" as to the actual relationship between debt and deficit. Bogus right-wing articles try to pull the very same hoax. Just because you are using numbers taken from valid sources (Treasury) does not mean that the numbers are being used correctly, and in these cases, they most definitely are not.
Assume an on-budget balance and determine the effect of an off-budget surplus. That surplus will increase the intra-government debt in the form of special purpose bonds which the Treasury issues to the appropriate trust funds. Since the Treasury has no other use for those funds, it will spend them to redeem some of the public debt. Thus the increase in intra-government debt will be balanced by an equal decrease in the public debt, leaving the official debt unchanged.
Official Debt and Public Debt
3. A stronger private free-market doesn't mean a strong economy. Usually it means the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. Free-market economies always favour the wealthy at the expense of the working classes. A mixed economy is far healthier and economically balanced than free-market.
She commits classic fallacy by thinking about economy as she would think about a household. A family facing financial hardship reduces spending -- and it works because lower spending has no effect on family income.
But the same is not true about economy as a whole. Spending and incomes are related, because someone's income is always someone else's spending. Lower aggregate spending inevitably leads to lower aggregate income, deeper recession and higher unemployment.
Suggesting that as a cure is stupid.
3. A stronger private free-market doesn't mean a strong economy. Usually it means the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. Free-market economies always favour the wealthy at the expense of the working classes. A mixed economy is far healthier and economically balanced than free-market.
Of course, you are talking from your experience living in the Free-Market of Toronto, Canada? I think not.
There are only TWO economies in the world currently with a Free-Market and they are economically stronger than nearly every other nation in the world in terms of terms of employment, Income Per Capita, Sovereign Wealth, and other indicators.
The Free-Market is 2/2 when it comes to economic model performance, while mixed economies around the world are falling apart. From the US, to the EU, to the Rising Sun. Even Canada and Australia have their inherently problems. And as developing nations, as they become more free, they grow much faster.
Free markets are a myth invented by economists to simplify their math. None have ever existed. Everyday reality moves farther away from the myth.
That is true. Here are the figures for the debt held by public. You can see clearly how it was falling at the end of Clinton years:
Something else was rising while the public debt was falling. By process of elimination, even you will be able to figure out what it was.
well, whooop dee doo !!
what about the DEBT ?
still over $16,000,000,000,000,000
and the libs/democrats just keep
That is true. Here are the figures for the debt held by public. You can see clearly how it was falling at the end of Clinton years:
Something else was rising while the public debt was falling. By process of elimination, even you will be able to figure out what it was.
Good, you finally admit that the public debt was falling.
