Amazed
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Feb 7, 2011
- Messages
- 1,001
- Reaction score
- 159
- Location
- North of Dorothy's Home.
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Other
Right, spending on WW2 helped bail us out just as spending helped bail us out of this recession.
hilarious.
We are never going to agree. You support the rich and I support the working class. You propose business as usual for the last 30 year except now you wish to add the dismantling of the programs that made our middle class strong. As I have observed the effect of trickle down economics over the last 3 decades and how it has hurt the middle class, I will continue to vote against it and support the working class in this country. See you at the polls in 2012! :sun
I think the choices are not an "either or" situation.
Government spending can stimulate the economy and hurt it at the same time.
I see your point, but I would argue that government stimulus doesn't help the economy, it only creates the illusion that things are getting better. It might not seem like an "either or" situation, but I believe that it obviously is.
FDR tried to spend his way out of the great depression, and failed. WW2 ended up bailing us out. Anytime legislation interferes with the forces of the market recovery tends to be delayed. The invisible hand does work, sometimes less regulation works better, especially during recessions. Is the law of supply and demand perfect, no. However, spending does not work. You can't dig yourself out of a hole.
While I typically disagree with stimulus' and things of that nature, as long as we are operating an economy using an inflationary monetary policy and the fed, it's best to stimulate it in other ways.
Giving checks to low income people would be a better way to stimulate the economy, than the craziness that goes on now, low income people are most likely to spend on consumer goods that would tickle the economy like stimulus programs are supposed to do.
If it were a perfect world I wouldn't want it to happen though.
let's see. we're going to take money from a small business owner through taxes, or from an investor through the sale of bonds
.....and spend it studying robot bees.
yeah, i can't see the economic inefficiency there. the business owners and investors probably would have spent that money on something foolish, like hiring new employees.
What about spending on military? Hey wait, that is stimulative, and does create jobs. In fact since it is not a one for one relationship, it creates more jobs than it costs.
The concept that if businesses if they have more money will hire more people is retarded. Businesses hire more people when they need more employees to meet demand, not because they want to spend money. Mindless conservative talking points don't do well in debate.
Right, but imposing those taxes on them sometimes makes it much more difficult to hire additional employees does it not?
Probably not. If demand is sufficient, jobs are made. If demand is not there, jobs are not created. Demand for a product/service is the overwhelming largest factor in employment and hiring/firing.
Probably not. If demand is sufficient, jobs are made. If demand is not there, jobs are not created. Demand for a product/service is the overwhelming largest factor in employment and hiring/firing.
Unreferenced graphs prove nothing.
Right....transpose this on now.....taxes will kill job growth...ain't no way round it...
Geeeezus....ever owned a bidness?
This addresses what I said how?
So you're saying that capitalism can operate effectively with little or no capital? Not trying to be a smart***, I'm just trying to figure out where you're coming from, becuase your position really seems self-contradictory.
Whether or not Taxes hurt the hiring capabilities of businesses?
Have you....or have you not?
The private sector was shedding jobs and was not hiring. So the stimulus was meant keep certain people in the public sector like police, fire and teachers in their jobs to keep demand for products/services up. This helps keep those people in the private sector from losing their jobs as well. Other money was used for infrastructure projects. These help with jobs in the private sector.Does government spending stimulate the economy or hurt it?
Probably not. If demand is sufficient, jobs are made. If demand is not there, jobs are not created. Demand for a product/service is the overwhelming largest factor in employment and hiring/firing.
Answer the question....have you EVER owned a bidness....or are you just once again going to assign ME an infraction for questioning you?
Demand means NOTHING if the REVENUES do not support the growth.
:shrug: as will I. the fact is that economists disagree on this matter, the problem is that keynsians are stuck on a circular argument, which is why their position is 1. self-reinforcing and 2. non-falsifiable. but it's interesting you don't have anything to dispute the fact that recessions met with increases in government intervention tend to last longer, but those met with government tax cuts don't, and those met with government tax and spending cuts recover fastest of all.
Businesses that are losing money hire new employees. Companies with excess money but enough employees to meet demand do not. Are you saying this is not true?
Have you EVER owned a business.....yes or no?
I think the choices are not an "either or" situation.
Government spending can stimulate the economy and hurt it at the same time.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?