No, Taking Away Unemployment Benefits Doesn’t Make People Get Jobs

[RGacky3]

1. And the money wont be there if a living wage is instituted, force the corporations to raise wages and they will leave, make the government print money and you will need a wheelbarrow of cash to buy bread. Its been done before, and it doesnt work.


2. And yet people smarter than you havent implemented it. Why is that? Since you believe in it so much then write Congress and tell them your "idea".... and be prepared to get laughed out of the room when you do because they will surely do that.

1. Bull****, it hasn't happened in all the countries with higher living wages, such as ... NORWAY .... It won't happen in the US, you know why? How this turns into inflation you haven't made an arugment for .... you haven't made an argument for any of this, and it's EMPIRICALLY wrong, simply go to countries with living wages.

2. Because Congress doesn't care about the economy at large, the well being of poor people, the well being of working class people, they care only about the will of their corporate bosses, corporate bosses who only care about profit.

 

[ludin]

I'm not sure what you are talking about here. The post was about the government's ability to pay for social programs. Nobody is asking companies for anything.

government pays through tax money collected from businesses. they can only borrow so much otherwise people stop lending it to them.

sure they could technically print the money but since the money enters into the system it creates inflation that is drive by something other than economic activity.
this means higher interest rates and more cost on goods and services.

 

[JohnfrmClevelan]

government pays through tax money collected from businesses.

Corporate taxes make up some portion of revenues, but to claim that government spending is limited because businesses only have so much cash is just incorrect.

they can only borrow so much otherwise people stop lending it to them.

Yeah, this isn't correct either. The government does not need anybody to lend them dollars. Bond issuance in a fiat currency economy is just an accounting operation - there is no exchange of value. We issue bonds to satisfy a legal (not operational) requirement to keep Treasury's account at the Fed in the black. We can satisfy this requirement by buying our own bonds, or by other methods. Or ultimately, we could simply change the law to reflect the fact that we are no longer on the gold standard.

sure they could technically print the money but since the money enters into the system it creates inflation that is drive by something other than economic activity.

Money "entering the system" does not cause inflation. Money spent into the system (or spent by recipients of checks, like SS benefits) elicits new production. There is no reason to think that this inflates prices.

this means higher interest rates...

Nope. The Fed controls the interest rates by participating in bond auctions and keeping yields where they want them.

....and more cost on goods and services.

Nope, again. See above.

 

[Arbo]

I know how much tax I personally, pay,

And that is???

 

[RGacky3]

And that is???

I'm not gonna discuss my personal finances on line, seriously google tax rates in norway, it's not that difficult, it's kind of stupid to make an argument, and then ask someone else to do your research.

 

[Arbo]

I'm not gonna discuss my personal finances on line,

Nobody asked for that, I simply asked for the rates there, or the rate you pay. Nothing more. But considering how long you have dodged this, it's pretty clear those rates are high enough to counter the higher pay, so the argument is an apples vs oranges argument…

 

[RGacky3]

Nobody asked for that, I simply asked for the rates there, or the rate you pay. Nothing more. But considering how long you have dodged this, it's pretty clear those rates are high enough to counter the higher pay, so the argument is an apples vs oranges argument…

How about you google the rates, and show everyone, rather than try and get someone else to research your own arguments.

 

[Arbo]

How about you google the rates, and show everyone, rather than try and get someone else to research your own arguments.

Nah, your diversion speaks volumes. And I'm sure everyone knows it probably exists because you know what the numbers are… and know they would sort of go against your point.

 

[RGacky3]

Nah, your diversion speaks volumes. And I'm sure everyone knows it probably exists because you know what the numbers are… and know they would sort of go against your point.

No I don't know the top tax rate, this is really getting pathetic, you could just google this ****, it's not secret.

 

[Arbo]

No I don't know the top tax rate, this is really getting pathetic, you could just google this ****, it's not secret.

Norway's total tax burden is 45% of gdp. That's the amount of GDP to give away all those 'free' things. The VAT is 25%, personal income tax is in the high 40's. All that on top of corporate taxes and a direct wealth tax.

Gee, this sounds kinda familiar: "The Norwegian tax system is based on the principle that everybody should pay tax according to their means and receive services according to their needs." Where might I have heard such a thing before?

Do the citizens believe in/follow the laws of Jante?

You're not to think you are anything special.
You're not to think you are as good as we are.
You're not to think you are smarter than we are.
You're not to convince yourself that you are better than we are.
You're not to think you know more than we do.
You're not to think you are more important than we are.
You're not to think you are good at anything.
You're not to laugh at us.
You're not to think anyone cares about you.
You're not to think you can teach us anything.

Thanks, but no thanks. I prefer our system, imperfections and all, as I believe people should strive to improve themselves and their situation, and have the ability to do so.

 

[imagep]

...

Gee, this sounds kinda familiar: "The Norwegian tax system is based on the principle that everybody should pay tax according to their means and receive services according to their needs." Where might I have heard such a thing before? ...

Ooo, ooo, I know, THE BIBLE...

his is what the Lord has commanded: Gather of it, every man of you, as much as he can eat; you shall take an omer apiece, according to the number of persons who each of you has in his tent. And the people of Israel did so; they gathered some more, some less. But when they measured it with an omer, he that gathered much had nothing over, and he that gathered little had no lack; each gathered according to what he could eat
(Ex. 16:16-18)

All that believed were together, and had all things in common; And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need.
(Acts 2:44-45)

here was not a needy person among them, for as many as owned lands or houses sold them and brought the proceeds of what was sold. They laid it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to each as any had need. There was a Levite, a native of Cyprus, Joseph, to whom the apostles gave the name Barnabas (which means “son of encouragement”). He sold a field that belonged to him, then brought the money, and laid it at the apostles’ feet.
(Acts 4:34-37)

I never realized that Norwegians were so strongly Christian.

 

[Arbo]

Ooo, ooo, I know, THE BIBLE...

We are not talking about fiction. Try again.

 

[Buddha C]

Ooo, ooo, I know, THE BIBLE...







I never realized that Norwegians were so strongly Christian.

:clap:

To be fair, I deplore using the Norwegian economy. It's too oil-driven for me, I like Denmark better as an example country of effective anti-venal orthodox Marxist policies o/

 

[PoS]

1. Bull****, it hasn't happened in all the countries with higher living wages, such as ... NORWAY .... It won't happen in the US, you know why? How this turns into inflation you haven't made an arugment for .... you haven't made an argument for any of this, and it's EMPIRICALLY wrong, simply go to countries with living wages.

2. Because Congress doesn't care about the economy at large, the well being of poor people, the well being of working class people, they care only about the will of their corporate bosses, corporate bosses who only care about profit.

LOL, this is hilarious, you keep saying that a welfare state that guarantees a living wage works yet all you can come up with as an example is Norway. Yet Norway a) doesnt have a minimum wage and b) has oil revenues to pay for its government spending. All the other welfare states like Denmark, Sweden, France, etc. are all just hanging on, most are in the red. So its apparent that the only way a welfare state can have a surplus is if it has a massive oil industry like Norway. Pretty obvious.

 

[JP Hochbaum]

LOL, this is hilarious, you keep saying that a welfare state that guarantees a living wage works yet all you can come up with as an example is Norway. Yet Norway a) doesnt have a minimum wage and b) has oil revenues to pay for its government spending. All the other welfare states like Denmark, Sweden, France, etc. are all just hanging on, most are in the red. So its apparent that the only way a welfare state can have a surplus is if it has a massive oil industry like Norway. Pretty obvious.

I think you need to define welfare state. There are many countries doing quite well supplying health care, college, and better benefits than the US.

 

[PoS]

Hyperinflation only happens when production drops by a ton. Warfare, famine, political upheaval, etc. It doesn't happen just by the government printing money.

LOL this is ludicrous, hyperinflation will happen when all the other nations react to a government that prints trillions of Dollars to pay for everything local and runs an unlimited deficit. The more money you print the more its value goes down- its what you chartalists cant seem to understand- its value that counts more than anything. Do you think that all the other nations, especially international creditors who hold Dollars as a reserve currency will do nothing when we start printing money like mad? The only thing keeping the US economy afloat right now is the status of the Dollar as a reserve currency- but that will soon be gone if you print money like there's no tomorrow- international finance and exchange rates will go haywire and the exchange rate of the Dollar will drastically lose its value. Then what are you going to do next? Enact currency controls? The US will not be able to import anything of value and we will have to export using a different exchange rate.

Chartalism isnt a new economic theory, its been around longer than even Keynesian theory yet nobody ever implemented it. Why? Because its clear it doesnt work, even in theory. Even Keynesians like Paul Krugman thinks chartalism is crazy, and I cant stand that guy but that says something.

 

[imagep]

LOL this is ludicrous, hyperinflation will happen when all the other nations react to a government that prints trillions of Dollars to pay for everything local and runs an unlimited deficit. The more money you print the more its value goes down- its what you chartalists cant seem to understand- its value that counts more than anything. Do you think that all the other nations, especially international creditors who hold Dollars as a reserve currency will do nothing when we start printing money like mad? The only thing keeping the US economy afloat right now is the status of the Dollar as a reserve currency- but that will soon be gone if you print money like there's no tomorrow- international finance and exchange rates will go haywire and the exchange rate of the Dollar will drastically lose its value. Then what are you going to do next? Enact currency controls? The US will not be able to import anything of value and we will have to export using a different exchange rate.

Chartalism isnt a new economic theory, its been around longer than even Keynesian theory yet nobody ever implemented it. Why? Because its clear it doesnt work, even in theory. Even Keynesians like Paul Krugman thinks chartalism is crazy, and I cant stand that guy but that says something.

Can you give any examples where there was hyperinflation without some sort of significant production shortage?

I'll wait while you google that. Let me know when you are through.

 

[JohnfrmClevelan]

LOL, this is hilarious, you keep saying that a welfare state that guarantees a living wage works yet all you can come up with as an example is Norway. Yet Norway a) doesnt have a minimum wage and b) has oil revenues to pay for its government spending. All the other welfare states like Denmark, Sweden, France, etc. are all just hanging on, most are in the red. So its apparent that the only way a welfare state can have a surplus is if it has a massive oil industry like Norway. Pretty obvious.

A surplus of what, exactly?

 

[JohnfrmClevelan]

LOL this is ludicrous, hyperinflation will happen when all the other nations react to a government that prints trillions of Dollars to pay for everything local and runs an unlimited deficit. The more money you print the more its value goes down- its what you chartalists cant seem to understand- its value that counts more than anything. Do you think that all the other nations, especially international creditors who hold Dollars as a reserve currency will do nothing when we start printing money like mad? The only thing keeping the US economy afloat right now is the status of the Dollar as a reserve currency- but that will soon be gone if you print money like there's no tomorrow- international finance and exchange rates will go haywire and the exchange rate of the Dollar will drastically lose its value. Then what are you going to do next? Enact currency controls? The US will not be able to import anything of value and we will have to export using a different exchange rate.

Aren't we deficit spending too much right now? Aren't we too far in debt? Where is the massive inflation you are worried about? And where is the correlation between money creation and inflation? There should be a perfect graph out there somewhere, if you are correct.

New money is spent into the economy, and that elicits new production. Explain why that should drive up prices.

Nobody is suggesting that we can print an unlimited amount of dollars without repercussions. But we obviously have the potential to produce more without breaking a sweat, and more production means more jobs and more wealth. Deficit spending is the way to elicit that extra production. And there is no reason to expect inflation unless and until a shortage of some element of production occurs.

Chartalism isnt a new economic theory, its been around longer than even Keynesian theory yet nobody ever implemented it. Why? Because its clear it doesnt work, even in theory. Even Keynesians like Paul Krugman thinks chartalism is crazy, and I cant stand that guy but that says something.

How would you describe our present economic system, if not chartalism? Are we not a fiat currency economy?

 

[DA60]

Can you give any examples where there was hyperinflation without some sort of significant production shortage?

I'll wait while you google that. Let me know when you are through.

Hyperinflation in the Weimar Republic - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Social Democracy for the 21st Century: A Post Keynesian Perspective: Real Output Loss in the Austrian and German Hyperinflations of the 1920s

The inflation problem in a Germany started in 1921...but GDP grew in '21 and '22. Only in 1923, when hyperinflation was out of control, did the GDP drop.

And then only for one year.

Hyperinflation can cause GDP loss...but GDP loss is not necessary to create hyperinflation.

 

[JP Hochbaum]

Hyperinflation in the Weimar Republic - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Social Democracy for the 21st Century: A Post Keynesian Perspective: Real Output Loss in the Austrian and German Hyperinflations of the 1920s

The inflation problem in a Germany started in 1921...but GDP grew in '21 and '22. Only in 1923, when hyperinflation was out of control, did the GDP drop.

And then only for one year.

Hyperinflation can cause GDP loss...but GDP loss is not necessary to create hyperinflation.

I don't think you understand what you just posted.

"1922 | 206 188 | 8.80%
1923 | 171 318 | -16.91%"

"Germany’s hyperinflation lasted from August 1922 to November 1923."

And you should read the comments under the blog. It denotes that the hyperinflation occurred primarily because its debts were denominated in foreign currencies. And odd that you used a source that you would typically call biased and liberal. It is a source I use often

 

[Buddha C]

LOL, this is hilarious, you keep saying that a welfare state that guarantees a living wage works yet all you can come up with as an example is Norway. Yet Norway a) doesnt have a minimum wage and b) has oil revenues to pay for its government spending. All the other welfare states like Denmark, Sweden, France, etc. are all just hanging on, most are in the red. So its apparent that the only way a welfare state can have a surplus is if it has a massive oil industry like Norway. Pretty obvious.

Someone seems to be ignoring some rather hefty negative externalities.

Strong currencies denote a weak government and a natural investor aversion to the strong currency. (Granted we have that whole LIBOR - GBP devaluation but meh, we're living in tumultuous times economically)

And clearly the Danish economy is run by non-stop spending sprees that have led to this terrible deficit.

 

[DA60]

I don't think you understand what you just posted.

"1922 | 206 188 | 8.80%
1923 | 171 318 | -16.91%"

"Germany’s hyperinflation lasted from August 1922 to November 1923."

And you should read the comments under the blog. It denotes that the hyperinflation occurred primarily because its debts were denominated in foreign currencies. And odd that you used a source that you would typically call biased and liberal. It is a source I use often

My post was in response to your buddy's (Cleve guy's) statement:

'Hyperinflation only happens when production drops by a ton.'

And as I proved, since hyperinflation in Weimar Germany began before a drop in GDP, his statement is incorrect (and PoS's was correct).

Remember, he said 'only happens when' - as in it cannot happen without a drop in GDP.

Since hyperinflation began before the GDP dropped, he was wrong.

Here is the wholesale price index for Germany:

Jan 1922
36.7
July 1922
100.6
Jan 1923
2785.0

Hyperinflation of the Weimar Republic in 1923 Germany

From July '22 to January '23 (before the GDP dropped) the wholesale price went up 27 times (2700%)!

If an average of 400+% per month is not hyperinflation to you - then I give up.


I just used imagep's post as a basis for my quote since your buddy is on my ignore list.

Obviously GDP will probably drop after hyperinflation begins. My (and I believe PoS's) point is that what causes it...and a drop in GDP is not necessarily one of the reasons.


Good day.

 

[PoS]

Aren't we deficit spending too much right now? Aren't we too far in debt? Where is the massive inflation you are worried about? And where is the correlation between money creation and inflation? There should be a perfect graph out there somewhere, if you are correct.

Look, when the crisis started in 2007 The Fed was holding about $800 billion on their books, now its over $4 trillion and counting, thats not out in circulation yet, its just sitting there- they are using it to pay interest to help prop up the banks- but they will have to unwind that sooner or later. Hyperinflation wont be caused by money in circulation, it will be caused by new money going into circulation.

Nobody is suggesting that we can print an unlimited amount of dollars without repercussions.

Oh? Werent you and your colleague advocating giving everyone in the country a living wage by printing unlimited money?

But we obviously have the potential to produce more without breaking a sweat, and more production means more jobs and more wealth. Deficit spending is the way to elicit that extra production. And there is no reason to expect inflation unless and until a shortage of some element of production occurs.

Youre missing the point, its not about production and its not about aggregate demand, its about perceived value- our markets and finances are run by confidence as much as it is by numbers. The rest of the world uses the Dollar as a reserve currency because of its perceived stability, lose that perception and you will have the world abandoning the Dollar as a benchmark currency and then countries like China and the EU will sell off their Dollar denominated bonds to the tune of $12 Trillion. That will have massive repercussions on the strength of the Dollar.

How would you describe our present economic system, if not chartalism? Are we not a fiat currency economy?

All countries in the world are run by fiat currencies but thats beside the point. We are more Keynesian than chartalist (or MMT).

 

[imagep]

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.

And if people lose their jobs and don't have any savings - tough...serves them right for not saving for a rainy day (I realize 'saving' is a four letter word for Keynesian's).

And if they lose their house and have no food - the government should house/feed you in an emergency shelter.

Not good enough - again, tough.

You are a cruel bastard...

At least that is what it seems like on the surface. But you are also correct.

Any form of government means tested benefits creates the moral hazard that we will make people more dependent and less independent. It's much more cruel to incentivize people into becoming dependent pets, than it is to incentivize them to become independent.

I totally agree with this part of your ideology.