JP Hochbaum
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Feb 7, 2012
- Messages
- 4,456
- Reaction score
- 2,549
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
No, Taking Away Unemployment Benefits Doesn’t Make People Get Jobs
Nor does giving them 'assistance' for years on end.
Are you saying that because some learn to save and others do not, that is inequality? That peoples personal actions cause economic inequality?
Nor does giving them 'assistance' for years on end.
Are you saying that because some learn to save and others do not, that is inequality? That peoples personal actions cause economic inequality?
A lack of income creates income inequality.
But what you said was "when there is excess in savings (increases in inequality)".
So are you saying that those that learned to and do save, create 'inequality'? If so, how do you propose to rectify that inequality?
A lack of income creates income inequality.
and???
If you have more income than me, can I have some of yours? We all have to be equal right?:mrgreen:
Yes, savings removes "demand" from an economy. Well there are many options to rectify it. You can add income to the bottom, replacing the lost demand. OR you can redistribute the savings that have drained demand.
Yes, savings removes "demand" from an economy. Well there are many options to rectify it. You can add income to the bottom, replacing the lost demand. OR you can redistribute the savings that have drained demand.
If you have more income than me, can I have some of yours? We all have to be equal right?:mrgreen:
Bottom line. The long term unemployment that Congress has passed in the recent past comes at a cost to tax payers because the tax payer will have to eventually repaid what Congress borrows in its spending.
Aggregate Demand, you should know this.Savings removes what 'demand'?
No I think that people should receive a basic minimum income or a job guarantee that pays them enough to earn a living.So you think the more some people save, the higher the wages at the bottom should be?
Aggregate Demand, you should know this.
No I think that people should receive a basic minimum income or a job guarantee that pays them enough to earn a living.
Seriously, you are conflating UI with SNAP?It makes more sense to give someone assistance based on what they used to make working than based on how many dependents they can create.
Not necessarily. High spending leads to high credit and over-speculation which then creates market bubbles which tend to burst and plunges markets into inevitable recessions. High savings combined with low spending creates slow but sustained growth- just because people dont spend as much doesnt mean that a market ceases to exist, there will always be a market, albeit smaller, but at the same time, less riskier. I dont see a relation between unemployment and spending unless its a full service economy.What creates jobs, is having more spenders. That is the only way capitalism can sustain itself.
Seriously, you are conflating UI with SNAP?
Not necessarily. High spending leads to high credit and over-speculation which then creates market bubbles which tend to burst and plunges markets into inevitable recessions. High savings combined with low spending creates slow but sustained growth- just because people dont spend as much doesnt mean that a market ceases to exist, there will always be a market, albeit smaller, but at the same time, less riskier. I dont see a relation between unemployment and spending unless its a full service economy.
Scenario: balanced federal budget. No trade deficit. Zero population growth.
Year 1 GDP is $1 trillion, so income is $1 trillion. Savings rate is 10%.
Year 2: GDP is $900 billion, so income is $900 billion. Savings rate is 10%.
Year 3: GDP is $810 billion, so income is $810 billion. Savings rate is 10%.
Year 4: etc., etc.
JP said:Aggregate Demand, you should know this.
Silliest response in the history of DP. Congrats.Scenario: balanced federal budget. No trade deficit. Zero population growth.
Year 1 GDP is $1 trillion, so income is $1 trillion. Savings rate is 10%.
Year 2: GDP is $900 billion, so income is $900 billion. Savings rate is 10%.
Year 3: GDP is $810 billion, so income is $810 billion. Savings rate is 10%.
Year 4: etc., etc.
It's not welfare, it is insurance that they were forced to pay for.I don't care if taking their benefits away makes them get jobs or not.
All it is for me is a form of government welfare - I say do away with it entirely.
Silliest response in the history of DP. Congrats.
And every economist since then.Ah, Keynes. That explains a lot.
Why would you want so much government control?Who determine what that amount is? How many 'busy work' jobs are needed to fulfill this dream? Are there any requirements for them to, i dunno, save money and not blow it on booze and whatever the latest electronics are and not burry themselves in debt?
I never said increased spending via credit, I said increased spending via increased income. Big difference. People need to stop putting words in my mouth.Not necessarily. High spending leads to high credit and over-speculation which then creates market bubbles which tend to burst and plunges markets into inevitable recessions. High savings combined with low spending creates slow but sustained growth- just because people dont spend as much doesnt mean that a market ceases to exist, there will always be a market, albeit smaller, but at the same time, less riskier. I dont see a relation between unemployment and spending unless its a full service economy.
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?