• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Build Roads, Save the World

The devaluation of money is typically called "inflation". Inflation is caused by increasing scarcity of goods.

As long as we make sufficient goods and services, then inflation isn't an issue. Creating money in itself isn't the cause of inflation, although if we simply gave away money it would lead to inflation.
What? So, let's say you have a normal increase of goods from one year to the next. But you triple the amount of 'money'. Are you honestly saying that this would not increase inflation significantly?

I'm not suggesting that we give away money, I'm suggesting that we use money to motivate people to produce goods and services of value.

You have it backwards. The motivation is the goods. The money is the currency used to obtain the goods.

So what exactly are you suggesting? That the government should helicopter money down on the people and then they will naturally run out and buy more things and this will boom the economy and not increase inflation at all? Or lower the value of the currency?
 
So you are a perpetual motion econ guy. Magic monopoly money.

And you think that the economy must adhere to the laws of physics?

What do you think has been propelling the "perpetual motion machine" of civilization for the past 5000 or so years? Do you think that there is some finite amount of energy/production that we must conserve for the future?
 
What? So, let's say you have a normal increase of goods from one year to the next. But you triple the amount of 'money'. Are you honestly saying that this would not increase inflation significantly?

When you walk into the store with more money in your pocket than usual, do the prices go up? When you buy more groceries than you usually do, do prices go up?
 
The devaluation of money is typically called "inflation". Inflation is caused by increasing scarcity of goods.

As long as we make sufficient goods and services, then inflation isn't an issue. Creating money in itself isn't the cause of inflation, although if we simply gave away money it would lead to inflation.

I'm not suggesting that we give away money, I'm suggesting that we use money to motivate people to produce goods and services of value.

I'm a bit confused by what you say. you said the devaluation of money is typically called inflation. then say its caused by scarcity of goods.
So I guess what you are saying is that people call the devaluation of money inflation but they are using an incorrect term?
 
Any road is a needed road.

At what coast? Sure we could build a brige to Hawaii for trillions of dollars and employ hundreds of thousands. the economic value of such a project is low.
 
Build roads, save the world. I'm intrigued. What do you think?

How to fix the world worker glut: Build more roads

"Maybe everyone is overcomplicating America's economic challenges today. Maybe there are no deep mysteries behind the slow growth, the stagnating incomes and the widespread economic anxieties that have given rise to populist movements on the left and the right.

Maybe the problem is simple: too many workers.
That is the argument made in a new paper released by the centrist Democratic think tank Third Way, which theorizes that the world economy is suffering from an oversupply of labor and too little demand for the goods and services those workers produce.
But the solution, they say, also is simple, though politically unpopular: roads and bridges, and a lot of them.
Penned by investment banker Daniel Alpert, the paper, builds on his 2013 book “The Age of Oversupply,” and it's Third Way’s latest effort to shape the liberal policy conversation in the 2016 presidential primaries. It does so in decidedly un-centrist fashion — by embracing a larger infrastructure spending program than Bernie Sanders does. . . "



This is left wing commie idiocy advocacy for more welfare. At one point Krugman said we would be better off pretending we were being attacked by martians and then producing $trillions in weapons to fight the aliens thus stimulating the economy. The truth is that taxing to get the money to spend destimulates the economy so no net gain is possible except for welfare recipients .
 
This is left wing commie idiocy advocacy for more welfare. At one point Krugman said we would be better off pretending we were being attacked by martians and then producing $trillions in weapons to fight the aliens thus stimulating the economy. The truth is that taxing to get the money to spend destimulates the economy so no net gain is possible except for welfare recipients .

The authors specifically said the funding should be borrowed.
 
The authors specifically said the funding should be borrowed.

and then you have to pay it back from taxes at which point you depress the economy
 
and then you have to pay it back from taxes at which point you depress the economy

Unless the improved infrastructure boosts productivity to improve economic performance enough repay the loan and raise living standards at the same time. That's why it's OK to borrow to invest.
 
Unless the improved infrastructure boosts productivity to improve economic performance enough repay the loan and raise living standards at the same time. That's why it's OK to borrow to invest.

no chance of that since money was spent or wasted to eliminate "worker glut" not to improve efficiency. Also, its really stupid to pretend that libsocialists would know where or how to invest money!! If they did the USSR and Soviet union would not have slowly starved to death 120 million and Japan would not have lost 3 decades of economic growth by wasting money on make work infrastructure.
 
no chance of that since money was spent or wasted to eliminate "worker glut" not to improve efficiency. Also, its really stupid to pretend that libsocialists would know where or how to invest money!! If they did the USSR and Soviet union would not have slowly starved to death 120 million and Japan would not have lost 3 decades of economic growth by wasting money on make work infrastructure.

Thank you for your input.
 
than for admitting defeat. Even see libertarians have to run from a debate?

I'm not sure, but "thank you for your input" usually means that he is pretty much ignoring you because your statements have no merit, but he wants to be nice about it.
 
I'm not sure, but "thank you for your input" usually means that he is pretty much ignoring you because your statements have no merit, but he wants to be nice about it.

funny how liberals always run from debates while libertarians never do. What does that teach you?
 
Actually, the authors say the money should be borrowed.

". . . Alpert says the government should borrow the money for infrastructure, echoing the liberal economists Larry Summers and Brad DeLong. They argued in a 2012 paper that with interest rates low and economic activity depressed in the wake of the Great Recession, government spending on infrastructure could pay for itself, in terms of new tax revenue generated by increased economic growth. . . ."

which has to be paid back by the people that really can't afford it.
then when you are done building those people get fired.

remember all those shovel ready jobs that was going to get the economy going?
billions of dollars spent and nothing to show for it.
 
which has to be paid back by the people that really can't afford it.
then when you are done building those people get fired.

remember all those shovel ready jobs that was going to get the economy going?
billions of dollars spent and nothing to show for it.

its funny, private business invents the Iphone miracle to stimulate the economy and the govt builds roads that aren't needed to stimulate the economy. This is the mentality that made the USSR and Red China fail.
 
which has to be paid back by the people that really can't afford it.
then when you are done building those people get fired.

remember all those shovel ready jobs that was going to get the economy going?
billions of dollars spent and nothing to show for it.

Never really implemented.
 
which has to be paid back by the people that really can't afford it.
then when you are done building those people get fired.

yes the govt encouraging the infrastructure industry is just like them encouraging the housing industry!! Boom and then bust!!
 
funny how liberals always run from debates while libertarians never do. What does that teach you?

That poster is far from a liberal.

But there comes a time when maybe one is better off just being polite, than to continue to argue with an extremist ideolog who isn't being reasonable.
 
Build roads, save the world. I'm intrigued. What do you think?

How to fix the world worker glut: Build more roads

"Maybe everyone is overcomplicating America's economic challenges today. Maybe there are no deep mysteries behind the slow growth, the stagnating incomes and the widespread economic anxieties that have given rise to populist movements on the left and the right.

Maybe the problem is simple: too many workers.
That is the argument made in a new paper released by the centrist Democratic think tank Third Way, which theorizes that the world economy is suffering from an oversupply of labor and too little demand for the goods and services those workers produce.
But the solution, they say, also is simple, though politically unpopular: roads and bridges, and a lot of them.
Penned by investment banker Daniel Alpert, the paper, builds on his 2013 book “The Age of Oversupply,” and it's Third Way’s latest effort to shape the liberal policy conversation in the 2016 presidential primaries. It does so in decidedly un-centrist fashion — by embracing a larger infrastructure spending program than Bernie Sanders does. . . "



Fiscal stimulus is never the answer. Its simply the lefts one trick pony for growing economies that they do not and could never comprehend.

Its a purely ideological and arbitrary approach that papers over the substantial and structural issues that are causing stagnation at the expense of massive new debt and larger Govt

Once the stimulus is gone, the economy settles back into stagnation but now you're left with allot of new debt.

Japan tried it in the 90s, ( 10 different stimulus pacakages totaling 100 Trillion Yen ) just so they could return to stagnation and possess the worlds highest debt to GDP ratio

Spain now has ghost towns filled with brand new infrastructure and town homes and a brand new International airport. Completely abandoned.


Here's another example of the failure of stimulus

Burma's Shiny Ghost Capital: A Rare Visit to Empty Naypyidaw
 
Never really implemented.

sure it was. some places were spending 5m+ on 10 jobs to put in a lamp post or
other such nonsense.

it was a total waste as the money was handed out with 0 provable plan in place.
it was implemented because the money was handed out. the people that got the money
did spent it on something else.

it was an absolute failure.
 
sure it was. some places were spending 5m+ on 10 jobs to put in a lamp post or
other such nonsense.

it was a total waste as the money was handed out with 0 provable plan in place.
it was implemented because the money was handed out. the people that got the money
did spent it on something else.

it was an absolute failure.

Stimulus is pushed by the left for one reason.

They oppose free market solutions that include but are not limited too tax cuts and reduced regulatory burdens on principle.

So they're left with this innefective and arbitrary one trick pony that just so happens to grow Govt and debt. How convienent

They will argue its merits no matter how many examples they're given of its failure.
 
Stimulus is pushed by the left for one reason.

They oppose free market solutions that include but are not limited too tax cuts and reduced regulatory burdens on principle.

So they're left with this innefective and arbitrary one trick pony that just so happens to grow Govt and debt. How convienent

They will argue its merits no matter how many examples they're given of its failure.

don't confuse what I am saying.

I am a proponent of stimulus packages however not in the way that it was done.
I would have rather taken that money and instead of giving it to special interest groups
it would have been better given in tax credits to people and small businesses.
 
Back
Top Bottom