Austerity. Lies, Damned Lies and Statitstics.

reply to post by burdman30ott6


you are looking at the pain inflicted on you by the banks and miss placing it in the poor.
i cant sit here and agree that taking money out of the "real economy"
and giving it to the banks makes any sense.

blame the correct people not the most convenient.

the ones who cannot "fail"

xploder

reply to post by BritofTexas


I haven't read the paper but in my mind it is clear that one should not overspend beyond his capacity to pay, that borrowing money erodes autonomy and puts a burden in future generations and ultimately aggravates taxes, since the need to find extra funds are indicative of problems with the budget in the first place.

Borrowing should only be done (in all cases, even in a personal case), when you are certain not to have to pay it back or when the open opportunities by the extra capital will have a high probability of supplanting the costs of the capital infusion (to play the probabilities will require to do multiple similar deals, so that failures may not outnumber the successes).

reply to post by Panic2k11


History and the monetary system of the world would disagree with you.

Historically, spending your way out of a recession has always worked.

As for borrowing. No country on this planet is free of debt. So where did the money come from? No country would call in their debts. as, if one did they all would and the whole system would collapse. Mutual destruction.

Money matters for the likes of you and I to buy a loaf of Bread. But when we are talking Trillions, it's the emperors new clothes.

reply to post by BritofTexas

Historically, spending your way out of a recession has always worked.

Historically doing so has always resulted in some costs to society. Do you never question yourself why something in your infancy would cost a fraction of what it does today, and why your children (if you decide to have some) will have a higher probability for a harder life than you had yourself ?

In a finite system there are always limits to what is possible, economic growth is dependent in resources (particularly energy, work is energy), needs and wants all for now have limits.

Originally posted by XPLodER
reply to post by burdman30ott6

 

you are looking at the pain inflicted on you by the banks and miss placing it in the poor.

No I'm not. That's where I disagree entirely. All that welfare, Obamacare, food stamps, subsidized housing, subsidized utilities, subsidized loans, etc. comes out of my paycheck every 2 weeks. I pay more in taxes today than I ever have at any other time in my life. We, as a nation, are rapidly approaching the point where half of the citizens pay nothing in income tax. I can choose to throw a middle finger to the banks by not taking credit cards (Which I do not own, btw), not taking out loans (aside from the student loan I am paying off, I owe nothing), and diligently shopping around for my general account handling my checking (which I did... my bank pays me for doing business with them). Paying for all of this ridiculous welfare and having a government which treats me like a parent, beholden to all these have-nots and responsible for their care and feeding is NOT a choice I have made. When you fall on hard times, you start cutting the frivolities first, that includes philanthropy. Bankrupt businesses and individuals don't make huge donations to charity, so why in the hell should a bankrupt government do it?

Originally posted by BritofTexas
Historically, spending your way out of a recession has always worked.

Really? The last 5 years are your definition of "worked?" Jesus, I'd hate to see a mulligan if that's the case.

The middle class has been decimated and expected to roll over and ask for another during the past 5 years. The only thing that has "worked" (Read: not made stuff worse) is the tatters checks and ballances which has obstructed just enough of the wanton spending spree with my kids' credit cards to prevent the complete collapse of the USA.

Originally posted by Panic2k11
Historically doing so has always resulted in some costs to society.

You're talking about inflation.

That's supply and demand in the short term, and balances out in the long term, all thing being equal. As the cost of labour should go up with the cost of living.

As to whether I choose to have kids. I'm about due for Grandchildren.

Originally posted by burdman30ott6

Originally posted by BritofTexas
Historically, spending your way out of a recession has always worked.

Really? The last 5 years are your definition of "worked?" Jesus, I'd hate to see a mulligan if that's the case.

Who says the last five years have been spent spending our way out?

Bridges are still collapsing, roads are still crumbling, the Electrical grid is still ready to fail.......

reply to post by Hopechest


Actually, that's not how economics work at all. If we cut all "welfare" the economy would tank because the economy relies on money being spent at the bottom.

Half the country no longer buying groceries? Shut down half the grocery stores, half the distribution centers, lay-off half the truckers, fork-lift drivers, shift supervisors, managers.The resultant cascade would impact every business, because the people we do business with rely on the economic energy at the bottom of the pyramid. Stores would close, followed by gas stations, auto dealerships, department stores, and banks.

What I pay in taxes is a fraction of what it would cost me if the local economy tanks.

Now military spending? It's an out of control behemoth of death and destruction, and needs to be dialed back. Even then, you could only do it slowly without tanking the economy along with the cuts because there are at least 10 civies employed for every active duty soldier. The good news is you can transition teams of military engineers scientists, equipment operators, managers and labor into something positive - like roads and bridges, cleaning up the pacific ocean gyre or creating large scale communications and energy networks.

Bottom line is "welfare" and military spending are tools designed to float the economy at ground level, where dollars actually pay the bills, and neither can be "cut" without killing the goose that lays the golden eggs.

No I'm not. That's where I disagree entirely. All that welfare, Obamacare, food stamps, subsidized housing, subsidized utilities, subsidized loans, etc. comes out of my paycheck every 2 weeks. I pay more in taxes today than I ever have at any other time in my life.

is there any connection to the fact that corporate profits are at an all time high while pay all time low taxes while the wages of the "spenders" have stayed the same over the same period of time?

they are connected

We, as a nation, are rapidly approaching the point where half of the citizens pay nothing in income tax. I can choose to throw a middle finger to the banks by not taking credit cards (Which I do not own, btw), not taking out loans (aside from the student loan I am paying off, I owe nothing), and diligently shopping around for my general account handling my checking (which I did... my bank pays me for doing business with them).

how does you acting responsibly stop the banks from tanking the entire economy?
or dropping the value of YOUR HOUSE BECAUSE THEY HIT A FUNDING "SNAG"?

Paying for all of this ridiculous welfare and having a government which treats me like a parent, beholden to all these have-nots and responsible for their care and feeding is NOT a choice I have made. When you fall on hard times, you start cutting the frivolities first, that includes philanthropy. Bankrupt businesses and individuals don't make huge donations to charity, so why in the hell should a bankrupt government do it?

do you want to live in a society or a jungle where its man eat man?

where did the jobs go? what happened to jobs so that people could work and afford to save for a home and get ahead,
if your answer is to china, then you understand that corporate profits for people who offshore profits to aviod taxes are the problem.

if the corps are off-shoring the good jobs, and their is a lack of employment because the "job creators" are "hoarding" the capital in tax haven,

how is that the fault of some poor smuck who has no pay rise in ten years.

again you blame the wrong segment of society for you higher taxes.

its like studying a cause and effect,

and concluding that the effected are the cause.

xploder

reply to post by BritofTexas

>Historically, spending your way out of a recession has always worked.

>>Historically doing so has always resulted in some costs to society.

>>>You're talking about inflation.

That is a deceptive response at best. The primary cause of inflation is debt.

What will happen in the US and UK will clearly demonstrate it (or in Europe if the Germans buckle to the quantitative easing stupidity). I understand the need to keep the system running but only as to effect positive changes, as things are going it is only propping the system up for an even more calamitous crash (the cycles are tightening and becoming more uncontrollable). Where are all the promised reforms, especially those that would not require money to implement, the lack of transparency is extremely telling...

I'm still waiting to see what rabbit they (those with power to make effective changes) will pull out of the hat, it will have to be something as so they can keep their heads in place when it all becomes too unbearable. I do fear that history will be repeated once more...