Who's to blame for the slow recovery?

[Ikari]

Bush approved QE1 bailing out the banks.

Who was in office during QE2 and QE3?

I know Obama has never taking responsibility during his 8 year term but to continue to blame Bush for those 8 years is beyond ridiculous.

Read what you quoted more carefully.

 

[Henrin]

Nobody is stopping the private sector from supplying plenty of jobs and solving all of our problems. But, hey, they don't seem to be doing that, despite making plenty of money. Wonder why that is?

Because expanding your business just because you have money to spend is stupid?

 

[Critter7r]

Because expanding your business just because you have money to spend is stupid?

Winner winner chicken dinner!!!

Nobody expands without first experiencing increased demand!!

 

[JohnfrmClevelan]

Because expanding your business just because you have money to spend is stupid?

That's part of the answer. Keep going...

 

[PIPEWRENCH]

Nobody is stopping the private sector from supplying plenty of jobs and solving all of our problems. But, hey, they don't seem to be doing that, despite making plenty of money. Wonder why that is?

They will as soon as we get a strong leader in office. There is no question the money is there to invest but whether they invest here in the US or abroad depends on where they can best make money from their investment. They are waiting for Obama to get out of the White House and to see who will get in. They have already proven they will not invest with Obama as leader of this country. A strong leader and business man they have confidence in working with and who will negotiate good deals for investing in this country.

 

[PIPEWRENCH]

Read what you quoted more carefully.

Yes I did.

 

[KLATTU]

As I said in the other thread - at length, and in great detail - economic growth takes growing demand, and in our economy, deficit spending is pretty much essential. And when I talk about demand, that is private sector growth.

LOL- do you hear that Haiti? Brazil? Venzuela? Greece? More spending is what you need!!

 

[Ikari]

Yes I did.

You sure about that? Because by your response, that's obviously not true. Here's what I wrote (and I highlighted the part you didn't read well enough)

It's because the Republocrats don't care about the People. When the economy tanked, government spent billions upon billions in tax payer bailouts to the banks and Wall Street, the very people who helped cause the collapse. Once the banks and Wall Street were taken care of, the government couldn't give two ****s about anyone else. The system was left to its own to "recover", i.e. just wait long enough and perhaps things will get back to "normal".

It's just another effect of Corporate capitalism and the natural results of what happens when the government isolates itself from the People.

To which you responded:

I didn't know Obama was a republican?:Oopsie:lamo

This is incorrect. I never called Obama a Republican and if you read my post carefully, which I asked you to do when you were in error, you would have seen this. I called him a Republocrat. That term encompasses both sides, the Republicans and Democrats (see? Republicans + Democrats = Republocrats), into one since there is very little functional difference between the two faces of our main Party.

You were so anxious to try to jump upon that which you thought was a mistake that you never actually read the post carefully enough. But now you know. Both Bush and Obama are Republocrats. The standard, status quo, corporate politician pushing for the expansion of government influence, size, and power.

 

[MTAtech]

That's hogwash because, as you point out, those are ten year treasuries. The more debt you have means the more debt you constantly have to roll over at different interest rates. If these bonds carried lifetime interest rates that never had to be refinanced then I would agree with you. If we run the current debt up from 20 trillion to 50 trillion then at some point in the future those debts will be rolled over at the prevailing interest rates of the time and you could be rolling over current low rates of 50 trillion dollars in debt to 8% - 10% interest rates instead of where they currently are. The problem with liberals is they don't believe interest rates will ever rise again and can never reach the rates of the late 70's, early 80's.

First, we have obvious, pressing needs for public investment in many areas. In Washington, the aging Metro is in such bad shape that whole lines may have to be shut down for maintenance. In Florida, green slime infests beaches, in large part because failure to upgrade an 80-year-old dike or to purchase more land as a runoff area is forcing the Army Corps of Engineers to release polluted water from Lake Okeechobee. There are similar stories all across America.

So investing more in infrastructure would clearly make us richer. Meanwhile, as I said before, the federal government can borrow at incredibly low interest rates: 10-year, inflation-protected bonds yielded just 0.09 percent recently.

Put these two facts together, big needs for public investment, and very low interest rates, and it suggests not just that we should be borrowing to invest, but that this investment might well pay for itself even in purely fiscal terms. How so? Spending more now would mean a bigger economy later -- with more people working and paying taxes, which would mean more tax revenue. While you are correct in pointing out that more borrowing means more debt, this additional revenue would probably be larger than any rise in future interest payments.

So, let's address some of your concerns:
We can’t borrow because we already have too much debt. What matters is the comparison between the cost of servicing our debt and our ability to pay. And federal interest payments are only 1.3% of G.D.P., low by historical standards.

Borrowing costs may be low now, but they might rise. Yes, maybe. But we're talking about long-term borrowing that locks in today's low rates. If 10 years isn't long enough for you, how about 30-year, inflation-protected bonds? They’re only yielding 0.64 percent.


Again, additional revenue would probably be larger from a more robust economy than any rise in future interest payments.

 

[JohnfrmClevelan]

They will as soon as we get a strong leader in office. There is no question the money is there to invest but whether they invest here in the US or abroad depends on where they can best make money from their investment. They are waiting for Obama to get out of the White House and to see who will get in. They have already proven they will not invest with Obama as leader of this country. A strong leader and business man they have confidence in working with and who will negotiate good deals for investing in this country.

Is it really the president? Don't Democrats own any businesses?

What businesses invest in is the probability of profit, and that takes demand. And that means money in the hands of consumers, not companies. And that is the problem with recessions - the ball rolls more slowly, companies invest less, people get paid less, people spend less, etc. Government spending is the only realistic source of countercyclical demand; when times get slow, the government can decide to spend more, when nobody else can. And if they spend enough, the ball can get rolling again.

 

[Moderate Right]

"Limits" are hardly the question. You indicated, whether you know it or not, that the proper amount of base money for a $15 trillion economy is zero. You said that any deficit indicated "overspending." And I think you said it without any comprehension whatsoever of the implications - you just see the words "deficit" and "debt" as negative, because the words themselves have negative connotations.

The only thing I'm trying to "pin you down" on is making sure you understand what you are talking about. There is a very good reason that governments are in debt, why many run regular deficits, and why some others don't. It is integral to how economies operate. And I have yet to see one speck of proof that you get it. Every time I bring it up, you answer back with a salad of unrelated defenses that never address the point.

I see you conveniently side stepped the question on Clinton and his surpluses.

 

[Moderate Right]

As I said in the other thread - at length, and in great detail - economic growth takes growing demand, and in our economy, deficit spending is pretty much essential. And when I talk about demand, that is private sector growth.

Then how could Clinton have some years with a budget surplus during a growing economy?

 

[Moderate Right]

Nobody is stopping the private sector from supplying plenty of jobs and solving all of our problems. But, hey, they don't seem to be doing that, despite making plenty of money. Wonder why that is?

Because of too many government regulations, a high corporate tax rate, and the general feeling of the anti-business administration.

 

[Moderate Right]

Winner winner chicken dinner!!!

Nobody expands without first experiencing increased demand!!

There is always some kind of demand, even during the great depression.

 

[Critter7r]

There is always some kind of demand, even during the great depression.

Surely you noticed I typed "increased demand"?

Sent from my SM-G360V using Tapatalk

 

[JohnfrmClevelan]

I see you conveniently side stepped the question on Clinton and his surpluses.

Because it was irrelevant.

 

[David_N]

And exactly how much of a deficit do you think America should be running this fiscal year?

Deficit spending aimed at getting the poor/middle class spending more dollars and reducing their debt burdens. Another answer is, to the point where full employment is met with noticeable unwanted inflation.

 

[David_N]

The best evidence in the world - even liberals acknowledge that we have a national debt of 20 trillion dollars and that we make interest payments on it and we got there by overspending. Budget deficits are the result of the government spending more dollars than the tax reciepts coming in, AKA overspending. If we didn't overspend our tax receipts then why do we make interest payments on the national debt?

How does acknowledging the national debt mean we're overspending? No one has said democrats can't be afraid of government bonds, although republicans tend to be worse. Anyways, I'm sure you've heard time and time again that crediting bank accounts is no real burden for a currency issuer, and the same applies to interest on debt. People holding government bonds aren't even looking to spend dollars in the private sector here, they're looking to save dollars in the form of a 100% safe asset.

Budget deficits are the result of the government spending more dollars than the tax reciepts coming in, AKA overspending.

What a lame argument.

 

[DA60]

Deficit spending aimed at getting the poor/middle class spending more dollars and reducing their debt burdens. Another answer is, to the point where full employment is met with noticeable unwanted inflation.

I asked 'exactly how much'?

Do you not have any idea at ALL how much?

If you don't, then your idea is hard to take seriously (imo) as anyone can just peddle a dream with zero specifics to it and claim it would be wonderful.

 

[David_N]

LOL- do you hear that Haiti? Brazil? Venzuela? Greece? More spending is what you need!!

I find it odd that you bring up these countries. Let's deal with them one by one.

First of all, Haiti is very vulnerable to natural disasters, as evidenced by the recent earthquake which decimated its economy. Haiti's economy is based on agriculture, and it doesn't take a genius to realize that natural disasters and farming don't compliment each other, especially when we're talking about a nation such as Haiti, which has a history of problems that have absolutely nothing to do with budget deficits. Haiti has to bend to the will of creditors, such as the Intra-American developmental bank, and as a poor nation with already limited resources, doesn't really apply when we're talking about growing demand to boost an economy. What Haiti needs is foreign aid, and a build up of infrastructure/cancellation of foreign debts. You can't compare a country like Haiti with limited resources, that is also very vulnerable to Natural Disasters, to a country like the United States which has plenty of Capital and no real issues compared to that of a country like Haiti.

Now, moving onto Brazil.
No one will deny that Brazil is experiencing a serious economic crisis. The cause of this crisis, however, isn't so simple to narrow down.
I think this is a great read if you have the time.
Minsky Meets Brazil - New Economic PerspectivesNew Economic Perspectives

Now, Venezuela is a simple one.
Venezuela has a severe shortage of consumer goods, which make new spending carry a serious inflation risk. Venezuela also pegs the bolivar, unless something has changed, and is essentially a command dictatorship at this point.

Greece is a simple one. Greece is stuck with the euro. I won't bother explaining the importance of that. You should know that before you enter this thread.

 

[David_N]

I asked 'exactly how much'?

Do you not have any idea at ALL how much?

If you don't, then your idea is hard to take seriously (imo) as anyone can just peddle a dream with zero specifics to it and claim it would be wonderful.

Providing an exact number is meaningless.

 

[DA60]

Providing an exact number is meaningless.

I said 'do you have any IDEA at all'.

And, apparently, you are saying that you have no remote idea of a figure for FY 2016.

Noted.

Then I must assume that you are just peddling a dream with zero specifics to back it up for today's economy...despite the fact you have seemingly typed hundreds of posts espousing this idea of yours.

I suggest if you want anyone who actually understands macroeconomics to take you seriously that you provide at least some remote figures in the future.


Good day.

 

[David_N]

I said 'do you have any IDEA at all'.

And, apparently, you are saying that you have no remote idea of a figure for FY 2016.

Noted.

Then I must assume that you are just peddling a dream with zero specifics to back it up for today's economy.


Good day.

I've already told you what my idea is.

 

[PIPEWRENCH]

Is it really the president? Don't Democrats own any businesses?

What businesses invest in is the probability of profit, and that takes demand. And that means money in the hands of consumers, not companies. And that is the problem with recessions - the ball rolls more slowly, companies invest less, people get paid less, people spend less, etc. Government spending is the only realistic source of countercyclical demand; when times get slow, the government can decide to spend more, when nobody else can. And if they spend enough, the ball can get rolling again.

First off the government spends money and business invest. There is a big difference. During the WPA walls were built down the middle of streets. Some still stand today as testament to wasted manpower and money. Germany built the Autobahn instead. Our government spent money to spend money where business wants something from the money it spends such as a state of the art highway.

Just spending money is stupid and wasteful which government excels at. No matter how much the waste it is OK. Raise taxes the Clinton plan.

When the Port of Houston was built it was called corporate welfare by the democrats who did not want to invest in America. The Republicans call it providing infrastructure to promote business and industry. The Port of Houston is one of the busiest ports in this country. #2 in the country because of infrastructure or corporate welfare as the democrat see it.

The democrats wanted to spend the money paying people not to work rather than provide millions of jobs. I want to our government spending to help industry put people to work in middle class jobs. The democrats want to bring cheap labor from south of the border to drive down wages.

 

[DA60]

I've already told you what my idea is.

Yup...with apparently no idea whatsoever of a real world figure for this idea of yours.

How you expect people who actually understand macroeconomics to take this theory of yours seriously when you are saying - in essence - ' here is my great idea, but I have absolutely no idea how much money is required to make it work'.; is beyond me.

But...knock yourself out.


Good day.