What to Do with the Deficit?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
61

[quote]Vanre wrote:
ok I confess I don’t know much about economics, and I hate to interrupt this fascinating debate, but I can’t help but wonder: despite all the theories and arguments raised by economists and educated bystanders (like some in this thread), we ultimately do not have a definite answer to past/present/future economic problems, do we?

I mean, if we KNEW what was wrong, why wouldn’t we just fix it immediately or prevent the problems from manifesting in the first place? If we knew better than the highly-criticised auhtorities that occasionally screw up the economy, why have we not replaced them yet?

On the other hand, perhaps all (economic) systems are inherently flawed since they rely on people to implement them, and human frailty is an unavoidable fact of life. Hmm.

Ok I realise this post isn’t very economic, or even very coherent, but it’s just my simple (simplistic?) 2 cents.[/quote]

To answer in very general terms, you surely must realize that whoever is on top in any existing power structure is there because of that powers structure.

There simply is no we. Some people benefit enormously from being able to create money out of thin air without leaving us any chance of fighting that constant pillaging short of putting them against a wall and they can pay lots of people with lots of guns with the money they steal from us to prevent that from happening.

62

[quote]facko wrote:
dhickey wrote:
facko wrote:
Ugh…it is futile to banter with you. If there is anyone who needs to open their eyes, it would be you. It’s funny…your opinions on economics are things you have simply come up with by “thinking things through”,

Wrong. I read quite a bit on economics. I simply choose to fully understand what I read before parroting it.

however mine are petty repeats of my professors. Do you have some sort of animosity towards me that I go to college?

Not at all. I went to college. You started out on this board coming right out and saying that most on this board don’t understand economics. It then became very clear that you do not truly understand economics. You may study econoimcs but you are missing the part where you actually understand what you are studying.

We have seen others like you on this board. You make broad statements with no actual logic to back it up.

To the average person reading your posts throughout this thread it would appear as though you mock my education.

I know nothing about your education. I don’t what books you have read on economics. I only know what you have typed in this thread. I encourage everyone to expose themselves to economics and you are taking 100% more initiative than most.

On top of that, the only one here who insulted anyone really, was you. You told me I’m stupid in a nice way (“you are not very bright”).

You set the tone with your first post. You simply cannot back up the bravado you displayed.

Again, no matter what false propaganda you spew from your mouth, you just can’t back anything up with fact. You tried to dissect each of my arguments with false choices, lies, and attacks on my comprehension and logic skills. In short, you lose.

Again, not specific. I don’t know how I can prove a negative but I will give it a shot. What specific problem to you think can only be solved by doing away with fractional reserve banking and/or fiat currency?

You have yet to address how the current state of affairs is anything but too LITTLE government involvement, in terms of regulation and restriction.

Again, this has been rehashed on several threads on this board. I can not help that you chose not to read and commment on them.

Regulation and restriction of the economy is simply treating the symtoms rather than the source. We have more regulation now than we have ever had in this country. Are we stronger, economically speaking, than we ever have been in the past? Name a specific issue you would like to discuss and we talk about how it not because of lack of regulation.

Are you of the select few, just you and your other jaded forum buddies, whom have true knowledge? You know better than 90% of the analysts, economists, college professors, text book authors, media, most all government officials. Must be…

Maybe, I don’t know what specifically you are talking about. Do I think that anyone following Keynesian economics is wrong? Yes I do. Do I think I know more than those that study and understands classic economics or the Austrian school of economics? No.

Again, point me to a specific topic or article that you think a analyst disagrees with me and we can discuss it.

Saying we are all fools becuase nobody mentioned monetary policy in the specific thread you chose to read, is not having a meaningful discussion.

The thing is, I’ve come to realize that no matter what I write, unless it coincides with your economic beliefs (which again, are skewed by your political beliefs) you are going to continue to dissect each point, one by one. And you will believe you are right as well, no matter what. What is the point?

It’s enlightening to me that you have mentioned the Austrian school in such a positive light. It explains a lot in regards to your method of action. I have yet to read any Austrian theories that are based on any type of real math. And just as you do, Austrian school is quick to point out all the flaws yet give no real alternatives. The bail-outs for instance. You point out how they are terrible, yet your alternative is, let it all collapse, even though in doing so, millions of jobs will be lost, lives will be ruined, which will lead to further spiraling of the economy. That is your solution? I give up. [/quote]

So those Austrians do not do any math, so they cannot do any real economics, can´t they?

Oh Lord…

63

[quote]dhickey wrote:
WASHINGTON ? President Barack Obama’s budget would generate unsustainably large deficits averaging almost $1 trillion a year over the next decade, according to new estimates released Friday.

The new Congressional Budget Office figures predict Obama’s budget will produce $9.3 trillion worth of red ink over 2010-2019. That’s $2.3 trillion worse than the administration predicted in its budget just last month.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090320/ap_on_go_pr_wh/obama_budget

I would say we are looking at MAJOR tax hikes. We are talking about a 30% growth in tax revenue. Considering that revenues will not increase incrementally with rate hikes, we will be looking at some of the highest rates ever.

All that money out of the economy and double digit inflation should be good for growth. I guess Obama can just leave it for the next guy to figure out.[/quote]

Don’t you just love it how Bush’s old cheerleaders get their tights in a knot all of a sudden over “the deficit”.

You didn’t know what the word meant 4 months ago, but now you’re worried?

64

[quote]Wreckless wrote:

Don’t you just love it how Bush’s old cheerleaders get their tights in a knot all of a sudden over “the deficit”.

You didn’t know what the word meant 4 months ago, but now you’re worried?[/quote]

lolwut?

65

[quote]tGunslinger wrote:
Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
tGunslinger wrote:It’s a little like the communism apologism: “Communism would work if every single person in society would suspend their basic human nature for their entire lives!”

Who says that, except for capitalists trying unsuccessfully to parody communists? Communism does work, if it’s not headed by an authoritarian beaureacracy, and instead adheres to libertarian principles of organization.

The prosperity of large families living together is proof that the communist philosophy is not entirely without merit. And you are right on the point that communism fails the instant it is no longer voluntary. Free to enter, free to leave.

But that is why it cannot ever succeed when enforced by a government. Whenever “I don’t want to join the collective!” is met with “Tough shit.”, the system will fail.

But since I made that statement in a discussion about fiat currency, you may safely assume that I meant government enforced communism.

And apologists for government enforced communism make foolish defenses that are thinly veiled substitutes for “Communism would work if every single person in society would suspend their basic human nature for their entire lives!”[/quote]

Fair enough, I am of the mind that in practice there really is no such thing as statist or authoritarian socialism, and so I misinterpreted you.

66

[quote]Wreckless wrote:

Don’t you just love it how Bush’s old cheerleaders get their tights in a knot all of a sudden over “the deficit”.

You didn’t know what the word meant 4 months ago, but now you’re worried?[/quote]

Who were the bush cheerleaders?

67

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:

Fair enough, I am of the mind that in practice there really is no such thing as statist or authoritarian socialism, and so I misinterpreted you.

[/quote]

That is the ONLY kind of socialism that exists: statist and authoritarian. It is the only kind of socialism that CAN exist. Or is there a typo in your post? Say, a wayward negative particle?

68

No, you just refuse to think about it. Authoritarian “socialism” just becomes state capitalism. Like the USSR. Capital is still owned by a small group of individuals. That they claim to represent the people is irrelevant.

69

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
tGunslinger wrote:It’s a little like the communism apologism: “Communism would work if every single person in society would suspend their basic human nature for their entire lives!”

Who says that, except for capitalists trying unsuccessfully to parody communists? Communism does work, if it’s not headed by an authoritarian beaureacracy, and instead adheres to libertarian principles of organization.
[/quote]

LOL!!! Holy shit that’s funny. Communism works! HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Where?

“From each to his ability to each according to his needs”…Marx.

So let me get this strait, you are willing to work really hard, then take your earnings and put them in a pot for anybody to take as that need?

My parents escaped from communism risking their lives to provide me with freedom, I’ll be fucking damned if I’ll let the likes of you or anybody to take my freedom from me…But you have confirmed my suspicions.

70

[quote]Wreckless wrote:
dhickey wrote:
WASHINGTON ? President Barack Obama’s budget would generate unsustainably large deficits averaging almost $1 trillion a year over the next decade, according to new estimates released Friday.

The new Congressional Budget Office figures predict Obama’s budget will produce $9.3 trillion worth of red ink over 2010-2019. That’s $2.3 trillion worse than the administration predicted in its budget just last month.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090320/ap_on_go_pr_wh/obama_budget

I would say we are looking at MAJOR tax hikes. We are talking about a 30% growth in tax revenue. Considering that revenues will not increase incrementally with rate hikes, we will be looking at some of the highest rates ever.

All that money out of the economy and double digit inflation should be good for growth. I guess Obama can just leave it for the next guy to figure out.

Don’t you just love it how Bush’s old cheerleaders get their tights in a knot all of a sudden over “the deficit”.

You didn’t know what the word meant 4 months ago, but now you’re worried?[/quote]

Alright, who kicked over the turd and let wreckless out again?

71

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
No, you just refuse to think about it. Authoritarian “socialism” just becomes state capitalism. Like the USSR. Capital is still owned by a small group of individuals. That they claim to represent the people is irrelevant.[/quote]

The fact that you think in theory, what has been proven completely false in practice over and over again, proves only that you are not fucking thinking or are incapable of it. Communism/ Socialism has a 100% failure rate. One hundred percent! It has failed everywhere it has been tried.

They had to build fences and arm guards to keep people from escaping. What do you think the barbed wire fence in East Germany was for, decoration? You think people in Cuba build rafts out of raincoats to escape because they did not think they deserved such a good system?

Communism makes everybody poor, that’s how it is kept equal, but some are “more equal than others” (Animal Farm).

72

[quote]pat wrote:
Wreckless wrote:
dhickey wrote:
WASHINGTON ? President Barack Obama’s budget would generate unsustainably large deficits averaging almost $1 trillion a year over the next decade, according to new estimates released Friday.

The new Congressional Budget Office figures predict Obama’s budget will produce $9.3 trillion worth of red ink over 2010-2019. That’s $2.3 trillion worse than the administration predicted in its budget just last month.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090320/ap_on_go_pr_wh/obama_budget

I would say we are looking at MAJOR tax hikes. We are talking about a 30% growth in tax revenue. Considering that revenues will not increase incrementally with rate hikes, we will be looking at some of the highest rates ever.

All that money out of the economy and double digit inflation should be good for growth. I guess Obama can just leave it for the next guy to figure out.

Don’t you just love it how Bush’s old cheerleaders get their tights in a knot all of a sudden over “the deficit”.

You didn’t know what the word meant 4 months ago, but now you’re worried?

Alright, who kicked over the turd and let wreckless out again?[/quote]

I thought I had put him on my ignor list. He is on there for sure now.

73

[quote]pat wrote:
Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
tGunslinger wrote:It’s a little like the communism apologism: “Communism would work if every single person in society would suspend their basic human nature for their entire lives!”

Who says that, except for capitalists trying unsuccessfully to parody communists? Communism does work, if it’s not headed by an authoritarian beaureacracy, and instead adheres to libertarian principles of organization.

LOL!!! Holy shit that’s funny. Communism works! HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Where?

“From each to his ability to each according to his needs”…Marx.

So let me get this strait, you are willing to work really hard, then take your earnings and put them in a pot for anybody to take as that need?

My parents escaped from communism risking their lives to provide me with freedom, I’ll be fucking damned if I’ll let the likes of you or anybody to take my freedom from me…But you have confirmed my suspicions.[/quote]

Spain in 1936. And, not surprisingly, you disaply a fundamental misunderstanding of socialism. In a socialist society, you still get paid for the work you do. And a truly socialist society MUST be a democracy, it ceases to be socialism without it, as the USSR ably demonstrates. It’s funny that you cling to a system that is the cause of inequality and coercion.

74

[quote]pat wrote:
Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
No, you just refuse to think about it. Authoritarian “socialism” just becomes state capitalism. Like the USSR. Capital is still owned by a small group of individuals. That they claim to represent the people is irrelevant.

The fact that you think in theory, what has been proven completely false in practice over and over again, proves only that you are not fucking thinking or are incapable of it. Communism/ Socialism has a 100% failure rate. One hundred percent! It has failed everywhere it has been tried.

They had to build fences and arm guards to keep people from escaping. What do you think the barbed wire fence in East Germany was for, decoration? You think people in Cuba build rafts out of raincoats to escape because they did not think they deserved such a good system?

Communism makes everybody poor, that’s how it is kept equal, but some are “more equal than others” (Animal Farm).[/quote]

The fact that you look no further than the labels on things, and disdain to actually examine their arrangements is telling.

75

Why are you guy wasting your time?

…everything you need to know can be found in the “multiplier effect” – duh!

76

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
“Socialism” inevitably means an authoritarian State. Like the USSR. Capital is still owned by a small group of individuals. That they claim to represent the people is irrelevant.[/quote]

Fixed it for you Ryan. Not only are you now historically correct (you know, what actually happens in practice?), you’re theoretically correct too. Even the socialists believed a “temporary dictatorship” to be necessary - you know, the one that was eventually supposed to “wither away”?

77

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Why are you guy wasting your time?

…everything you need to know can be found in the “multiplier effect” – duh!

[/quote]

This is the stupidest fucking arguement for spending money you don’t have. Yeah, maybe there is some magical multiplier, but guess what? The same fucking multiplier must be use when money is pulled out of circulation to pay off the debt. Then you get to add in interest, inflation and “handling” charges. Don’t forget about lost efficiency due to gov’t only being able to guess where money is needed or simply going off their campaign contributions list to dole it out.

Since I don’t have the will power to keep from arguing with idots, from now on anyone who sites the multiplier effect immediately goes on the ignor list. It shows an absolute lack of reasoning. You cannot have a discussion with someone that refuses to use logic and reason.

78

choir…you’re preaching to it, dude.

I just thought we’d be able to silence our buddy, Mr. McCarter.

79

Besides the fact that “the socialists” are a fairly diverse set of people in their beliefs, “dictatorship” is not used in the same way we use it. Remember, it’s translated from German, and it basically just means that the workers will run things for a while.
Besides that, some socialists reject that aspect.

Wait, why am I even wasting my time? You’ve completely bought into Uncle Sam’s propaganda. There’s no way you can think critically about this.

80

[quote]dhickey wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Why are you guy wasting your time?

…everything you need to know can be found in the “multiplier effect” – duh!

This is the stupidest fucking arguement for spending money you don’t have. Yeah, maybe there is some magical multiplier, but guess what? The same fucking multiplier must be use when money is pulled out of circulation to pay off the debt. Then you get to add in interest, inflation and “handling” charges. Don’t forget about lost efficiency due to gov’t only being able to guess where money is needed or simply going off their campaign contributions list to dole it out.

Since I don’t have the will power to keep from arguing with idots, from now on anyone who sites the multiplier effect immediately goes on the ignor list. It shows an absolute lack of reasoning. You cannot have a discussion with someone that refuses to use logic and reason.
[/quote]

So basically, “I don’t think the spending justifies the future debt.” Fine, but don’t pretend that’s authoritative, as many people disagree with you. But we already had a huge debt. Since you don’t want to raise taxes during a recession, we’ll have to borrow a bunch of money anyway just to run the government. The choice, basically, is do you want to have to pay this debt back with your economy in the toilet, or do you want to borrow more now so that you’ll actually be in a solid position to be able to collect revenue in the future?