Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[GreatJustice]

GreatJustice, if the most basic knowledge of economics is controversial to you then there won't be much productive conversation.  The difference between a depression and stagflation is such a basic principle that someone who calls stagflation a depression clearly has no interest in economics.

This coming from someone who doesn't know what classical Keynesianism is.

Again, "depression", unlike recession, is exceptionally vague, perhaps why you used the word in the first place. Define your terms.

[mainiac]

Again, "depression", unlike recession, is exceptionally vague, perhaps why you used the word in the first place. Define your terms.

As I have explained literally dozens of times in this thread to both yourself and others, depression economics matter when real interest rates are at or near zero due to excess capacity.  You are clearly not interested in what I have to say or you would have picked up on me repeating this many, many times over the past year.  Don't act like I'm being vague here I have taken extreme pains to explain this point.  I did it for you most recently yesterday.

How long do I need to keep repeating econ 101 concepts to you before you learn the vocabulary?  You can disagree but after a year you should know the vocabulary.

[Kogan Loloklam]

Entitlement is a nation gambling that the people they help out, freeing them from the survival requirement forcing them in the labor pool, pays off with inventions and new ideas.

If you start looking at it that way, maybe you can see why food stamps is a good thing.

We get our steller people who grew up on welfare. The question for you entitlement eliminatists is, is what the government paid into the system worth the chance of great people coming out, or would you rather conserve those resources and not have the Quality of Life increases innovation brings?

I'd rather have my money sapped by a welfare state than live in a place like the America some people describe. Fortunatly that is where I live.

Keep in mind, you people, that Toady One is UNEMPLOYED!

[MetalSlimeHunt]

That's not really accurate. Toady is employed, by himself, for himself, as a programer. It makes him a decent amount of money too, judging by the donation count.

[misko27]

Entitlement is a nation gambling that the people they help out, freeing them from the survival requirement forcing them in the labor pool, pays off with inventions and new ideas.

If you start looking at it that way, maybe you can see why food stamps is a good thing.

We get our steller people who grew up on welfare. The question for you entitlement eliminatists is, is what the government paid into the system worth the chance of great people coming out, or would you rather conserve those resources and not have the Quality of Life increases innovation brings?

I'd rather have my money sapped by a welfare state than live in a place like the America some people describe. Fortunatly that is where I live.

Keep in mind, you people, that Toady One is UNEMPLOYED!

I, really don't understand your argument, nor whether you are in favor or against Food Stamps.

[kaijyuu]

His argument is that welfare is a long term investment that pays off, which should work as an argument for welfare if you happen to be an asshole productivist who only cares about maximizing production and efficiency.

[Mictlantecuhtli]

That's not really accurate. Toady is employed, by himself, for himself, as a programer. It makes him a decent amount of money too, judging by the donation count.

Seattle is more expensive than you'd think.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

That's not really accurate. Toady is employed, by himself, for himself, as a programer. It makes him a decent amount of money too, judging by the donation count.

Seattle is more expensive than you'd think.

It's also the First Circle of Hell, but you don't see me bringing that up.

(I happen to have a long standing grudge against Seattle for stealing Raleigh's position as the US city with the highest percentage of college graduates.)

[GreatJustice]

Again, "depression", unlike recession, is exceptionally vague, perhaps why you used the word in the first place. Define your terms.

As I have explained literally dozens of times in this thread to both yourself and others, depression economics matter when real interest rates are at or near zero due to excess capacity.  You are clearly not interested in what I have to say or you would have picked up on me repeating this many, many times over the past year.  Don't act like I'm being vague here I have taken extreme pains to explain this point.  I did it for you most recently yesterday.

How long do I need to keep repeating econ 101 concepts to you before you learn the vocabulary?  You can disagree but after a year you should know the vocabulary.

A source would be nice, but apparently saying "THIS IS ECON 101" is good enough for you. Hey, I can play that game too.

"A depression is a situation in which there is a liquidity crunch followed by a decline in the purchasing power of the general population".

Also, once more, there WERE negative real interest rates during the stagflation of the 1970s. You're not even making an argument anymore, you're just mindlessly repeating yourself.

EDIT: Oh I see, you're referencing Krugman and Thoma. That's cute. Could you clarify?

[alexandertnt]

Cut spending drastically, cut taxes somewhat less drastically. Ending legal tender would be helpful, but the Fed raising rates (slightly) would probably be sufficient otherwise.

I could understand the need to cut spending somewhat (but from where?), but what taxes should be cut? There are several types, they would all have different effects on the economy. Would you be ok with increasing them to pre-recession levels when the economy comes out of recession?

You want to end money? (At least from my search of "legal tender" on wikipedia) What would replace it as a mechanic for deferred payment?

[GreatJustice]

Cut spending drastically, cut taxes somewhat less drastically. Ending legal tender would be helpful, but the Fed raising rates (slightly) would probably be sufficient otherwise.

I could understand the need to cut spending somewhat (but from where?), but what taxes should be cut? There are several types, they would all have different effects on the economy. Would you be ok with increasing them to pre-recession levels when the economy comes out of recession?

You want to end money? (At least from my search of "legal tender" on wikipedia) What would replace it as a mechanic for deferred payment?

Spending cuts should be from just about everywhere. Welfare, government projects, the military (ESPECIALLY the military, actually), and so on. A lot of government programs are basically impossible to fund in the long term, and should be cut back over time regardless.

What taxes should be cut depends on the types of taxes present. The sales tax and VAT, the income tax, capital gains, and the payroll tax in particular all come to mind.

Ending money, no. Legal tender is what legally obligates individuals to accept US Dollars or whatever the local "legal" currency is. Competition in currency creation would prevent the Federal Reserve from promoting unsustainable booms, or at least reduce their long term effectiveness. Furthermore, it would create more flexible interest rates that actually reflect saving in the economy.

[mainiac]

EDIT: Oh I see, you're referencing Krugman and Thoma.

Delong actually.

[alexandertnt]

Spending cuts should be from just about everywhere. Welfare, government projects, the military (ESPECIALLY the military, actually), and so on. A lot of government programs are basically impossible to fund in the long term, and should be cut back over time regardless

What taxes should be cut depends on the types of taxes present. The sales tax and VAT, the income tax, capital gains, and the payroll tax in particular all come to mind.

the income tax for the higher brackets should not be cut, that would just take money that could be used for welfare/schools/health and transfer it to people so that they can now afford their third beach house. The lowest brackets though, seem like a reasonable idea to lower (or perhaps increase the threshold). Particularly given that the lowest bracket (in America) I think starts at $0. The main problem with the economy being in poor shape is that these people in the lowest brackets are the ones that are suffering, and the ones in the upper bracket sure are not. The military should be cut, this should be more doable with the withdrawl from Iraq. Science is an investment, it is expected that it will make significant returns/benefits in the future (think of what ARPANET the internet did to economics).

Well obviously we can only cut taxes that are present. Sales/VAT taxes are effectively flat taxes that places more burdon on the poor (since the money is worth more to them, to eat etc) so cutting this may not be a bad idea. capital gains tax have been decreased several times and do not appear to have correlated with economic growth

A lot of government programs are basically impossible to fund in the long term, and should be cut back over time regardless.

The governmnent has fluctuated in and out of debt/surpluss since many of these programs have been created. They seem quite possible to fund for the long run, with responsible and non-ideology based policies (eg avoiding the Laffer Curve, a gigantic oversimplification of a complex system).

Many european countries have managed to sustain significantly larger government programs (especially in regards to welfare ahd universal education). (I am using the non-broke countries as an example here, of course. The cause of the other countries debt is often placed on mishandling/corruption of managing the economy *cough*Greece*cough* and is a different discussion).

Ending money, no. Legal tender is what legally obligates individuals to accept US Dollars or whatever the local "legal" currency is. Competition in currency creation would prevent the Federal Reserve from promoting unsustainable booms, or at least reduce their long term effectiveness. Furthermore, it would create more flexible interest rates that actually reflect saving in the economy.

yes, it would stop the Fedeal Reserve from messing with things, but damn this would fracture the economy. Imagine not being able to pay a supplier, becuase they use a different currency. The supplier has to change currency to another one to pay the manufacturer. The shop that sells stuff after all this only accepts some form of money and not others, so you have to change the currency there. Not to forget international trade. Which countries will work with what currencies?

Having many types of currencies would make a confusing mess of the economic system.

It would also seem likely that large manufactures would all default onto one currency anyway to reduce this (particularly in regard to international trade). That would influence wholesalers etc to do the same thing, resulting in one mostly dominant currency. Now the owner/printer of that currency has the same, if not more power, than the Federal Reserve had, accomplishing nothing.

I don't think many economist's would support this idea...

[Karnewarrior]

The Decentralization in this one is strong...


I think the States should get more Centralized, not less. I also think we should lean more socialist than we do now, it seems to work well enough for the Europeans why not give it a try here? I'm independent because I don't want to affiliate myself with either major party (in fact I don't believe in the party system being useful AT ALL) but I'm mostly leaning democrat for now.

[Euld]

That's not really accurate. Toady is employed, by himself, for himself, as a programer. It makes him a decent amount of money too, judging by the donation count.

Seattle is more expensive than you'd think.

He doesn't live in Seattle.  He lives in Silverdale, a small town that's actually pretty far removed from Seattle by multiple bodies of water and landmasses.  Learned that from this article.  I'll take a guess that where he lives is much cheaper than an apartment in Seattle.

It's always interesting how people from other states (or countries?) seem to think Seattle is the crux of civilization in Washington state   It's not even the capitol of Washington, guys.  (Just poking fun, don't take it personally)