"The economy is contracting"

[EdwardBaiamonte]

The New Deal did NOT create demand because all putting money in at the top does is slow the bleeding. It does NOT create demand.

dear, you want to say where jobs and economic growth come from don't you??

 

[Dugdale_Jukes]

The New Deal did NOT create demand because all putting money in at the top does is slow the bleeding. It does NOT create demand.

dear, you want to say where jobs and economic growth come from don't you??

Oh my, Edmund; your assumptions are so... je ne sais quois...

Are your kind aware that Reagan, the fabulous government hater, tripled the fucking national debt and signed "pay parity" bills that no serious Republican could possibly sign? Do you know that federal government head count was significantly higher in 1988 than it was in 1980? Have you heard that your hero pardoned eight million illegal aliens with one slash of his pen? Do you regale your friends with stories about Reagan's bailouts of Wall Street and the S&L industry?

One suspects that most of you nutballs are so lost in the legend that actual facts about the pretend Republican, actual bobbleheaded moron on Don Regan's leash, Reagan, are viewed through pink lenses.

 

[kiwiman127]

dear, $16 trillion in debt, $100 trillion in unfunded liabilities, and libturd Obama clamoring for an elimination of the debt ceiling, does not see like austerity.

It seems like absurd spendthrift bankrupting liberal communist prolificacy!!!!!

doubling the numbers on food stamps and disability is austerity!!!

Notice how you will always look very slow when you merely parrot the liberal press??

I know very well that the National Debt is 16 trillion which is the result of policies and legislation by both political parties. Of course you're such a partisan hack you think it was just the Dems!
In order to lower the National Debt spending must be brought down and taxes need to be raised,,that's if you are serious about lowering the National Debt.
Lowering government spending does effect the GDP. Government spending is responsible for 25% of the US GDP. In Europe where austerity has taken place with the combination of tax hikes and government spending cut, economies have shrunk. If you don't think cutting government spending doesn't shrink the GDP/economy, well then you are an idiot. Europe is the perfect real time example of what I am explaining to you.
Most economist have suggested that we go at the spending cuts and taxation is a slow controlled manner, going to fast and hard could very well do irreparable damage to the economy.

So when is this amazingly "elusive" spending cutting going to take place, Kiwi? The President called for a "balanced" approach. The deal to avoid the fiscal cliff was $41 dollars in tax increases to ever $1 in spending cuts. Is it just me...or is that rather LACKING in balance?

The ball is now in the Democrat's court. They got their taxes. So when do they provide spending cuts?

Well Old Style, when is Obama going cut spending? Damn if I know. If he's serious, he better put something on the table. If he doesn't, I'll be pissed. Spending cuts/tax increases should be a dollar for a dollar.
One thing we should have learned from Europe is that we go at this slow or we'll end up like quite a few European countries,,,with another recession.

 

[thanatos144]

Hey idiot communists we already know your ideas don't Fucking work..... Maybe when you guys grow up and have to support yourself you will learn but I doubt that because instead you will be on welfare and remain the leeches you are.

 

[Oldstyle]

I know very well that the National Debt is 16 trillion which is the result of policies and legislation by both political parties. Of course you're such a partisan hack you think it was just the Dems!
In order to lower the National Debt spending must be brought down and taxes need to be raised,,that's if you are serious about lowering the National Debt.
Lowering government spending does effect the GDP. Government spending is responsible for 25% of the US GDP. In Europe where austerity has taken place with the combination of tax hikes and government spending cut, economies have shrunk. If you don't think cutting government spending doesn't shrink the GDP/economy, well then you are an idiot. Europe is the perfect real time example of what I am explaining to you.
Most economist have suggested that we go at the spending cuts and taxation is a slow controlled manner, going to fast and hard could very well do irreparable damage to the economy.

So when is this amazingly "elusive" spending cutting going to take place, Kiwi? The President called for a "balanced" approach. The deal to avoid the fiscal cliff was $41 dollars in tax increases to ever $1 in spending cuts. Is it just me...or is that rather LACKING in balance?

The ball is now in the Democrat's court. They got their taxes. So when do they provide spending cuts?

Well Old Style, when is Obama going cut spending? Damn if I know. If he's serious, he better put something on the table. If he doesn't, I'll be pissed. Spending cuts/tax increases should be a dollar for a dollar.
One thing we should have learned from Europe is that we go at this slow or we'll end up like quite a few European countries,,,with another recession.

He hasn't put cuts on the table for the past four years. Have you been "pissed" all that time? Let's be honest here, Kiwi...Barack Obama does two things when he talks cuts...either the cuts are to come years down the road (with no guarantee they will take place) or they are "cuts to increases"...which aren't really spending cuts at all. It's the same as someone spending a hundred bucks on a new hat and telling you they actually SAVED ten bucks because the hat was marked down from $110. When is he going to call on Harry Reid to make REAL cuts to spending? The fiscal cliff deal was $43 dollars in new taxes for every $1 in spending cuts. That's so lopsided it's absurd to even term it a compromise. So when does the "balanced" approach happen?

 

[Oldstyle]

While the rabbi clearly has no understanding of the mess Obama inherited from that filthy god damned scum Junior Bush, there is little question what the nation is going through now are economic shudders signaling the permanent death of the blue collar middle class.

It is unlikely there is ever going to be a traditional recovery is my initial point. Reagan's agenda was to destroy American labor as a partner in America's economic growth. He started with Keynesian nonsense hilariously called "supply side" and caused the double dip recession of 81-82. Then he destroyed the S&L industry, lenders entirely focused on smaller loans in blue collar areas, before he bailed out the BUYERS of S&Ls and Wall Street after the crash. But Reagan's killer blow was pardoning about eight million illegal aliens, which is pretty funny given how many of his human cattle supporters still think he gave a shit about them.

The actual objective of Reaganomics is a labor class as chattel bouncing back and forth between nowhere jobs and government checks. Clinton finished the job on blue collar labor with NAFTA and exporting millions of decent jobs to the PACRIM while bragging about creating millions of scut jobs for the blue collar set. For good measure Clinton deregulated speculation in commodities and ended Glass Steagall.

The only president in recent memory to understand economics was Pap Bush and look what those filthy god damned nutball scum did to him?

The consequence of all that malfeasance in public office is a permanently bifurcated nation; going forward there will be about a third of the people who are golden due to being well enough educated to fake it among bourgeoisie, another third whose fortunes remain wildly dependent on the global economy, and the bottom third who neither party gives a fuck about and under Clinton Democrats stopped pretending to care about.

Probably the best hope for any kind of restoration of blue collar fortunes in America is another serious crash, something that is increasingly likely due to Obama's continuing to turn a blind eye to the FED buying securities, a practice Nixon started and Reagan seriously abused before that halfwit inheritor Junebug turned his bag licking cabana boy Greenspan loose with taxpayer money.

While Obama is not innocent, his real problem is he is too stupid to understand the situation and people like Geithner and Lew are there to make sure that he, like Reagan, Clinton, and Junior Bush, stays that way.

The malfeasances of the last 33 years seem unlikely to end well is my summary point.

You lost me when you declared Supply Side economics to be Keynesian. What ARE you talking about?

Keynes was a demandsider whose unfortunate claim to fame is the idea that government can and should stimulate economic demand during rough patches. The short version is that Keynes believed putting money in at the top (supply side, to ReagaNUTs) preserved enough jobs to be worth doing, hence bridge building and WPA programs, etc., A bonus was some of that money went to the street where in theory it might create demand. The reality is The New Deal did NOT create demand because all putting money in at the top does is slow the bleeding. It does NOT create demand.

Keynes felt government was limited to slowing or stopping the bleeding - saving some jobs more than creating new ones; he was not crazy enough at any point in his life to believe government could actually GROW an economy. That kind of idiocy is for alchemists, perpetual motion enthusiasts, mindless freakshow liberals - and corporate welfare hounds (aka "supply siders").

Corporate welfare - tax breaks, free land, whatever, aka, "supply side" in ReagaNUT lingo, is STILL money going into the economy at the top, EXACTLY the same as giving money to state and local government to piss away. FWIW many do not realize state and local governments are also corporations, albeit PUBLIC corporations.

As to Reagan per se, Don Regan and other corporate welfare enthusiasts understood Reagan wasn't the sharpest tack in the box. They correctly believed they owned the man to whom corporate welfare could be sold as a job creator. The rest is history.

Regan, Schultz, Weinberger, Simon, et al realized two things: 1) US birth rates were slowing; and 2) western labor shared in profits at levels Asian , Latin and African labor did not.They also realized that while no US president could cripple "western" labor, there were two primary ways to cripple US labor: 1) dilute the labor pool; and b) export well paying blue collar jobs.

Reagan opened the borders, then pardoned eight million illegal aliens.

Reagan then began to attack private sector unions and to reduce tariffs.

It is not likely Reagan was aware of any of this. Not only did he not have any understanding at all of economics, he was he on the leading edge of dementia and his handlers kept him busy with meet and greets where he could tell foreign leaders his war stories based on movies he saw or was in.

It is very likely the only stupider president than Reagan in the last hundred years is Junebug Bush. Reagan tripled the national debt and for good measure increased the government workforce more than any president before him except Roosevelt.

Hilariously, Clinton took ReagaNUT policy to the hoop with NAFTA, deregulating essential commodities and ending Glass Steagall. The combination of Alan Greenspan, Robert Rubin and a halfwit-inheritor president was more than the US economy could stand.

Obama is an economic idiot as well, only his Greenspan (Bernanke, is lost in space) and Geithner is to put it mildly, over his head. Jack Lew is another corporate sycophant, so not much is going to change.

Whichever one of you said I loathe both parties is correct. Neither gaggle of filthy fucking scum represents me. I was born when Truman was president; I liked IKE and even Nixon. Kennedy was okay. None of the rest of the presidents in my life were worth a fuck.

Opinions will vary from my thoughts on the presidency, but there won't be many posting anywhere with my understanding of economic systems. Economics since about 1980 or so is full of jargoNUTs, but there are parallels with the farm: to wit: if it walks like a duck, swims, flies and quacks, well, it just might be a duck. Putting money into any economy at the top to stem the bleeding of jobs is Keynesian. Period.

With all due respect, Dugdale? I think you need to go back and brush up on your economics. First of all money doesn't go "in at the top" despite your claims. Profits trickle up...not the other way around. What Supply Side economics was built upon is the concept that when government takes a smaller percentage of profits, investors are given an incentive to start or expand businesses...and conversely...if you raise taxes you provide an incentive to investors to put their money into tax shelters to protect their capital. The Supply Side "model" purports to show that expanding businesses will generate additional revenue to offset the cost of the tax cuts.

Your preoccupation with "demand" amuses me. Are you another one of the confused souls that thinks it is "demand" that creates investment? I'm sorry but isn't the case. An anticipation of profit is what does that.

 

[Freemason9]

The economy begins and ends with demand. Demand drives ALL economic activity, and even highly taxed profits from demand-driven sales will encourage further economic activity.

No demand, no economy; reduced demand, contracting economy.

 

[Oldstyle]

Still, the weakness may be because of one-time factors. Government spending cuts and slower inventory growth subtracted a total of 2.6 percentage points from growth.

This is basically the result of austerity.

We have a consumer based economy and the government is the biggest consumer.

I don't really see what the problem is for conservatives.

This is the RESULT they want.

YES. The economy expands when federal spending increases, and ultimately contracts when it decreases. Like you, I don't understand why this is such a mystery to so many people. Governance is a huge industrial component.

It isn't a "mystery" that when the Federal Government takes money out of the Private Sector in the form of either increased taxes or by printing huge amounts of currency to finance it's debt...that doing so impacts the amount of investment capital available to start new companies or expand existing ones. To use a rather simple analogy...it's akin to robbing Peter to pay Paul. I'm sorry but "governance" is not a huge contributor to REAL economic growth.

 

[Oldstyle]

The economy begins and ends with demand. Demand drives ALL economic activity, and even highly taxed profits from demand-driven sales will encourage further economic activity.

No demand, no economy; reduced demand, contracting economy.

That is absolutely...100%...false. Demand does not drive economic activity. Give it just a modicum of thought and you'll see that I'm right.

As an example...there would be HUGE demand if GM suddenly started selling Corvettes for $10,000. There would literally be lines around the block at the local dealership. They'd be pumping those babies off the assembly line as fast as they could make them! So why DOESN'T General Motors do that? It's quite simple...with that price they won't make a profit. The simple economic fact is that it is an anticipation of profit that encourages economic activity...demand plays a part in it but it's a small part.

 

[william the wie]

The economy begins and ends with demand. Demand drives ALL economic activity, and even highly taxed profits from demand-driven sales will encourage further economic activity.

No demand, no economy; reduced demand, contracting economy.

That is absolutely...100%...false. Demand does not drive economic activity. Give it just a modicum of thought and you'll see that I'm right.

As an example...there would be HUGE demand if GM suddenly started selling Corvettes for $10,000. There would literally be lines around the block at the local dealership. They'd be pumping those babies off the assembly line as fast as they could make them! So why DOESN'T General Motors do that? It's quite simple...with that price they won't make a profit. The simple economic fact is that it is an anticipation of profit that encourages economic activity...demand plays a part in it but it's a small part.

That is why no one trusts GDP figures. For example based on purchasing power India not Germany is the World's 4th largest economy. Using Chinese GDP conventions the published US data would probably either drop to about 7 trillion GDP or rise to 28 trillion.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

This is basically the result of austerity.

We have a consumer based economy and the government is the biggest consumer.

I don't really see what the problem is for conservatives.

This is the RESULT they want.

YES. The economy expands when federal spending increases, and ultimately contracts when it decreases. Like you, I don't understand why this is such a mystery to so many people. Governance is a huge industrial component.

It isn't a "mystery" that when the Federal Government takes money out of the Private Sector in the form of either increased taxes or by printing huge amounts of currency to finance it's debt...that doing so impacts the amount of investment capital available to start new companies or expand existing ones. To use a rather simple analogy...it's akin to robbing Peter to pay Paul. I'm sorry but "governance" is not a huge contributor to REAL economic growth.

you could even say it detracts from economic growth since it never invents new products while it is new products that got us from the stone age to here. Ever dollar the libturds waste is a dollar that might have gone toward the development of a new product.

 

[Dugdale_Jukes]

You lost me when you declared Supply Side economics to be Keynesian. What ARE you talking about?

Keynes was a demandsider whose unfortunate claim to fame is the idea that government can and should stimulate economic demand during rough patches. The short version is that Keynes believed putting money in at the top (supply side, to ReagaNUTs) preserved enough jobs to be worth doing, hence bridge building and WPA programs, etc., A bonus was some of that money went to the street where in theory it might create demand. The reality is The New Deal did NOT create demand because all putting money in at the top does is slow the bleeding. It does NOT create demand.

Keynes felt government was limited to slowing or stopping the bleeding - saving some jobs more than creating new ones; he was not crazy enough at any point in his life to believe government could actually GROW an economy. That kind of idiocy is for alchemists, perpetual motion enthusiasts, mindless freakshow liberals - and corporate welfare hounds (aka "supply siders").

Corporate welfare - tax breaks, free land, whatever, aka, "supply side" in ReagaNUT lingo, is STILL money going into the economy at the top, EXACTLY the same as giving money to state and local government to piss away. FWIW many do not realize state and local governments are also corporations, albeit PUBLIC corporations.

As to Reagan per se, Don Regan and other corporate welfare enthusiasts understood Reagan wasn't the sharpest tack in the box. They correctly believed they owned the man to whom corporate welfare could be sold as a job creator. The rest is history.

Regan, Schultz, Weinberger, Simon, et al realized two things: 1) US birth rates were slowing; and 2) western labor shared in profits at levels Asian , Latin and African labor did not.They also realized that while no US president could cripple "western" labor, there were two primary ways to cripple US labor: 1) dilute the labor pool; and b) export well paying blue collar jobs.

Reagan opened the borders, then pardoned eight million illegal aliens.

Reagan then began to attack private sector unions and to reduce tariffs.

It is not likely Reagan was aware of any of this. Not only did he not have any understanding at all of economics, he was he on the leading edge of dementia and his handlers kept him busy with meet and greets where he could tell foreign leaders his war stories based on movies he saw or was in.

It is very likely the only stupider president than Reagan in the last hundred years is Junebug Bush. Reagan tripled the national debt and for good measure increased the government workforce more than any president before him except Roosevelt.

Hilariously, Clinton took ReagaNUT policy to the hoop with NAFTA, deregulating essential commodities and ending Glass Steagall. The combination of Alan Greenspan, Robert Rubin and a halfwit-inheritor president was more than the US economy could stand.

Obama is an economic idiot as well, only his Greenspan (Bernanke, is lost in space) and Geithner is to put it mildly, over his head. Jack Lew is another corporate sycophant, so not much is going to change.

Whichever one of you said I loathe both parties is correct. Neither gaggle of filthy fucking scum represents me. I was born when Truman was president; I liked IKE and even Nixon. Kennedy was okay. None of the rest of the presidents in my life were worth a fuck.

Opinions will vary from my thoughts on the presidency, but there won't be many posting anywhere with my understanding of economic systems. Economics since about 1980 or so is full of jargoNUTs, but there are parallels with the farm: to wit: if it walks like a duck, swims, flies and quacks, well, it just might be a duck. Putting money into any economy at the top to stem the bleeding of jobs is Keynesian. Period.

With all due respect, Dugdale? I think you need to go back and brush up on your economics. First of all money doesn't go "in at the top" despite your claims. Profits trickle up...not the other way around. What Supply Side economics was built upon is the concept that when government takes a smaller percentage of profits, investors are given an incentive to start or expand businesses...and conversely...if you raise taxes you provide an incentive to investors to put their money into tax shelters to protect their capital. The Supply Side "model" purports to show that expanding businesses will generate additional revenue to offset the cost of the tax cuts.

Your preoccupation with "demand" amuses me. Are you another one of the confused souls that thinks it is "demand" that creates investment? I'm sorry but isn't the case. An anticipation of profit is what does that.

Let's start at the beginning, there Ana Chron. Okay?



For every railroad, telegraph, automoble, or computer type "game changer" built from the supply side, there are literally hundreds of thousands of businesses built on demand alone. The message is game-changers are economic home runs. People line up to see them, but not very many people hit one.

The rules for well over 99% of businesses are that demand creates sales and sales create profits.

Corporate welfare in any form including but not limited to outright tax breaks, free land, or subsidized employees like illegal aliens (costs to taxpayers are huge) puts money in at the top (where most of it stays; see, 1980-2013), as does filtering money through political grifters in state and local governments. See, here is how it works: putting money in at the top, to SELLERS and government agencies was Keynes' 'big idea' for governments to support transient demand-building policies to get past economic rough patches. It isn't what he wanted to be known for - Keynes understood, as do all rational economists not shilling for corporations, that economies are demand-based; but that is how the cookie crumbles.

Whereas every single HONEST individual with even the most rudimentary understanding of economics knows for a fact that growth begins and ends with demand. Which - beginning or ending - is a function of level of demand (in context of the usual commercial constraints).

You might want to print this out and put it somewhere you spend a lot of time. Maybe the refrigerator door or the bathroom door - or maybe just tape in to the wall in the corner and put a light on the dunce cap to make it easier to read?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

there are literally hundreds of thousands of businesses built on demand alone.

can you provide your best example of this or admit as a liberal you lack the IQ to do so. Thanks!!

 

[Dugdale_Jukes]

there are literally hundreds of thousands of businesses built on demand alone.

can you provide your best example of this or admit as a liberal you lack the IQ to do so. Thanks!!

A. Not being a complete total ReagaNUT moron does not equal being what passes for 'liberal' in America today, Edmund.

B. Low IQ does not equal 'poor communicator', Ed. See, "Reagan".

C. Familiar examples from among of the tens of millions of businesses around the world built on the strongest possible foundation - demand - include prostitution, drug dealers, and nutball radio shows. Evidence includes that a drug-addled carnival act like Pigboy Limbaugh can afford to fly to Haiti to pay to have sex; further evidence includes that a tinfoil hat cowboy like Glenn Beck can herd hundreds of thousands of potgotted leisure suited marginal literates to DC to protest against their own best interests.

That enough?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

can you provide your best example of this[ typical business built on demand, rather than supply]or admit as a liberal you lack the IQ to do so. Thanks

C. Familiar examples from among of the tens of millions of businesses around the world built on the strongest possible foundation - demand - include prostitution, drug dealers, ?

too stupid!! Is prostitution your best example of the vast majority of businesses built on demand????


See why we are 100% positive a liberal will be slow, so very very slow!! OMG!! prostitution, mostly illegal!!! is your best example of the vast majority of demand created businesses.

 

[Dugdale_Jukes]

can you provide your best example of this[ typical business built on demand, rather than supply]or admit as a liberal you lack the IQ to do so. Thanks

C. Familiar examples from among of the tens of millions of businesses around the world built on the strongest possible foundation - demand - include prostitution, drug dealers, ?

too stupid!!

Is prostitution your best example of the vast majority of businesses built on demand????


[snip]

Not by half.

Nutball radio would be the "best" example of those three. Most nutballs over the age of twenty-five appear to be able to do without sex or drugs, but they all need Glen or Pigboy talking points to connect the voices inside their heads to the world and to one another as they bumble through life in search of moral superiority to compensate for real world inadequacies.

Interestingly, nutball radio is the pastureland of politics; human cattle graze around their own shit there as blissfully unaware of corporate-owned politicians' plans for them as beef cattle contentedly chewing their cud on the way up the chute to forever.

 

[kiwiman127]

can you provide your best example of this[ typical business built on demand, rather than supply]or admit as a liberal you lack the IQ to do so. Thanks

C. Familiar examples from among of the tens of millions of businesses around the world built on the strongest possible foundation - demand - include prostitution, drug dealers, ?

too stupid!! Is prostitution your best example of the vast majority of businesses built on demand????


See why we are 100% positive a liberal will be slow, so very very slow!! OMG!! prostitution, mostly illegal!!! is your best example of the vast majority of demand created businesses.

You have to be the stupidest fuck on these boards. I see you were a write in for that honor on another thread.
All you do is blah, blah, blah. No factual evidence to back your inane posts, just blah, blah, blah.
It must suck to be you.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Not by half.

so then why not tell us your best example, if not prostitution after all, of the millions and millions of businesses that you claim are built on demand , not supply??????????????

Why run evade, avoid, dodge, and weave unless you were 100% mistaken while shooting your liberal mouth off about demand side Keynesian economics!!

See why we are 100% positive a liberal will be slow??

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

You have to be the stupidest fuck on these boards.

of course if true the silly liberal would not be so afraid to present his best example for the whole world to see. What does you fear tell you about the liberal IQ and character??