Want to fix the debt problem? We need to print more money!

[jeff f]

Which textbook is that? The Socialist's Guide to Ruining a Country?

i think its the fairy tale textbook. maybe alice in wonder land? dont worry neut, we are only a few more trillion dollars worth of debt away from utopia. jsut a couple more foodstamp stimulations away....i can see it coming......like a fucking freight train.

fucking dummies.

 

[RyanTheRhino]

 

[Mr Neutron]

Uhm, every textbook. go to your local library and start looking through economics books; All of them have chapters on spending multipliers.

There seems to be a shortage of books on economics here, in fact, there is a shortage of books.

Maybe we'll just call it ignorant, I hate to sound harsh but I feel like you are just contesting the validity of multipliers because you have an urge to oppose anything liberals post on these boards. Fiscal spending multipliers are supported by EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE - something some of you righties seem to out of your way to ignore.

I really don't like calling people like you liberals because today's Libertarian was once called a classic liberal and I don't like to use the term progressive because it is misleading BUT if you would ever post something that made sense, THEN I would not oppose what you said.
BTW, I am NOT on the right... you keep making this assumption that everyone who holds a political belief to be either on the right, left or somewhere in between. This is another indicator to me that you don't know as much as you think you do. Just another immature mind, trying to justify the lies it has been force fed.
But that is OK, too. At least you're participating in the discussion, there is hope for you, yet. I just hope you don't wait too long.

"As you are, I was... As I am, you will be"

 

[Dan Kone]

The Germans tried that back after the war... Ever seen the footage of people taking wheel barrels of money in to buy stuff? Printing money is NOT the answer. Work longer, produce more & do it more efficiently than the rest & that will fix the problem.

Working longer and producing more isn't possible when there is no jobs.

You can't pay a guy to sweep the floor at a gm plant $75K a year when there are 20 year old Asians (other people too.. but certainly over in Asia its pretty apparent) who will work 18 hours a day for a 1/4 of that. And be happy doing it.

Work hard & produce. That's the ticket!

Are you advocating sweatshop labor in the US?

 

[Dan Kone]

Government multipliers only take in to account after the food stamps are given:"Every dollar of SNAP benefits generates $1.84 in the economy in terms of economic activity. If people were able to buy a little bit more in the grocery store than someones got to stock it, shelve it, package it, process it, ship it. All of those are jobs." - Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack

"The reality is that he is just moving money around. I mean, at what cost do we get $1.84?" - Lee Hawkins Wall Street Journal

The cost is $1 of course. Moving money around does stimulate the economy.

 

[Dan Kone]

a load of bread will cost 300 dollars instead of 2 dollars
since more money means inflation.

again, not all inflation results in hyper inflation. Countries successfully manipulate currency all the time.

 

[Dan Kone]

You honestly think our creditors wouldn't notice this?

They can notice it all the want.

Gov spending has proven to be ineffective.

No, quite the opposite. It's actually a proven fact that it's much more stimulative than tax cuts.

Not to mention that you would erode all the wealth in this country.

Which is for the most part controlled by the wealthy elite. The top 1% of this country control more wealth than the bottom 80%. So yeah, the wealthy are doing just fine. I'm ok with that.

 

[mame]

BTW, I am NOT on the right... you keep making this assumption that everyone who holds a political belief to be either on the right, left or somewhere in between. This is another indicator to me that you don't know as much as you think you do. Just another immature mind, trying to justify the lies it has been force fed.
But that is OK, too. At least you're participating in the discussion, there is hope for you, yet. I just hope you don't wait too long.

You believe in Austrian economics right? Well then, in a thread about economic matters you are "of the right"... Pretty simple IMO; I understand that libertarians are different than your standard Republican, but it doesn't change that your economic ideas aren't very similar(if not the same, with today's house Republicans in office).

 

[Dan Kone]

bahahahahhah food stamps stimulus?hahahah yes, then we should be realy stimulated considering there is more people on them than ever.

you are a lib, i dont expect you to get it. you wont.

but keep your eyes open, cuz a tax cut is what you are gonna get, and sooner than later.

food stamps, best stimulus ever....its proven....hahahah i still cant stop laughing.

It is proven. It's also proven tax cuts are one of the worst forms of stimulus. Saying "hahaha" doesn't change the economic data out there which universally backs up what I'm saying.

 

[Mr Neutron]

You believe in Austrian economics right? Well then, in a thread about economic matters you are "of the right"... Pretty simple IMO; I understand that libertarians are different than your standard Republican, but it doesn't change that your economic ideas aren't very similar(if not the same, with today's house Republicans in office).

That does not make any sense at all.

 

[sync0s]

The cost is $1 of course. Moving money around does stimulate the economy.

What about the people it's taken from? What about the cost of increasing debt and inflation that is caused by government spending programs like food stamps? What about increasing dependance of the individual on the government and it's possible cause of a less productive and abundant workforce?

It's clear these questions are not asked in Keynesian economic theory thus making all factors not considered and therefore an unprovable bias claim:

Friend of Investors and Savers
Instead of trying to boost the economy by trying to fool consumers, Friedman believed the same ends could be met by minimizing government involvement. This would be achieved by lessening taxes in the long term and ceasing inflationary policies. Inflation, Friedman pointed out, was just another attempt to fool consumers into thinking they were earning more, when the corresponding rise in the cost of living was actually canceling out any gains in wages. Friedman and the other economists at the Chicago school led attack after attack on concepts like the Keynesian multiplier and the damage of saving.

Friedman took issue with the Keynesian multiplier because it gave any form of government spending - even debt spending - a superior rating over private investment. Friedman pointed out that the more the government borrows to spend, the more pressure there is to inflate the currency to meet the payments in the future. Furthermore, government spending crowds out private investors who will sit on their capital when the government is paying for everything. Friedman argued that, at best, the multiplier was unjustified and the implications of government deficit spending needed to be looked at in a broader sense to measure the true impact.

Read more: http://www.investopedia.com/articles/economics/09/milton-friedman.asp#ixzz1VWolaAwh​

​

 

[DrFever]

dan are you seriously saying print more money ?????? cmon man obviously you know the money in your pocket is already worth nothing

what they say 42 cents on a american dollar is borrowed money already so lets fire the money presses are you insane lol
let think about it for a second make more money and devalue the dollar even more lol makes sense to you ???? to what make more jobs lol
what you should be really worrying about is When the countrys you rightfully owe money to dont decide to call in the debt obviously when china loaned you a shit load in turn amercia was to clean up there infrastructure and clean up there act but were here today and usa has done nothing but further keep falling into a hole

 

[Dan Kone]

to what make more jobs lol

Making more jobs isn't "lol", it's the whole ball game.

My point is that you can't fix the deficit you can only make it worse in the short term. That is just the reality of recessions. We haven't ever had a positive result from spending cuts during a recession.

Given that why not address the most important pressing issue we have right now, unemployment. That problem needs to be fixed first or else it's impossible to fix any of the other problems. The best way we have to do that is with government spending programs, so that's what we need to do, spend. I know that's not what you want to hear but it's the only option with a chance of success.

Reducing spending right now will only lead to further unemployment, which leads to less revenue, which leads to bigger deficits. So why cut spending when the result of that is likely going to be a worse economy and even more deficits? Isn't the point of spending cuts to reduce deficits? If the result of a spending cut will be more deficits, then why bother doing that at all?

 

[Dan Kone]

What about the cost of increasing debt and inflation that is caused by government spending programs like food stamps?

What about the increased unemployment spending cuts will cause? Was is protecting billionaire's low tax rates more important than American jobs? Do they really need a tax break more than middle class families need to feed their kids?

Cutting spending = more unemployment = lower revenues = more debt

You can cut spending in a good economy and it won't hurt that bad, but if you cut spending during a recession it kills jobs which lowers tax revenues.

What about increasing dependance of the individual on the government and it's possible cause of a less productive and abundant workforce?

What about the +20% of the working population that is unemployed and there isn't any jobs for them? Why don't they count?

It's clear these questions are not asked in Keynesian economic theory thus making all factors not considered and therefore an unprovable bias claim:

No it really doesn't. Nothing you said disputes the statistic data we have. You raised philosophical questions to answer a math problem. Nothing you said changes the numbers.

 

[sync0s]

What about the increased unemployment spending cuts will cause? Was is protecting billionaire's low tax rates more important than American jobs? Do they really need a tax break more than middle class families need to feed their kids?

Cutting spending = more unemployment = lower revenues = more debt

You can cut spending in a good economy and it won't hurt that bad, but if you cut spending during a recession it kills jobs which lowers tax revenues.



What about the +20% of the working population that is unemployed and there isn't any jobs for them? Why don't they count?



No it really doesn't. Nothing you said disputes the statistic data we have. You raised philosophical questions to answer a math problem. Nothing you said changes the numbers.

First off, when did I ever say anything about tax cuts for billionaires? I've made my stance abundantly clear that tax brackets should be done away with. In addition, I'm not advocating the idea that food stamps should be done away with either. I'm arguing the point that $1 of food stamps magically turns into $1.84 in economic stimulus.

Cutting spending = more stable financial future = less interest paid = less debt = less taxes = more private sector capital = less unemployment

Just because you, Krugman, and Obama think this stuff is facts, doesn't mean it is. It is a theory; one that has been tested by Obama and is clearly not working. Acknowledge that, please!

Again, what about unemployment? I am arguing that the idea that food stamps creates $1.84 from $1 is not true, or at least proven.

Perhaps I am missing something, but I have seen no statistical numbers from you? That is not a philosophical argument; that is an argument that SHOULD illustrate the variables in the study (if there was ever one done) that would completely change the results in any statistics that may have been acquired. If they have not been taken into account, it would thus mean the numbers are not 100% accurate.

Here is the term of the day: Confounding Variables

Confounding variables are variables that the researcher failed to control, or eliminate, damaging the internal validity of an experiment.

 

[DrFever]

During the 80s, as exports dropped, and jobs moved from manufacturing to lower paying "service sector" jobs, the US tax base declined. In order to keep the jobless rate from rising, a massive defense program called the Strategic Defense Initiative was cranked up, but since this program produced no exportable product, it produced no taxable sales revenues, and hence the money poured into the project accelerated the government decline into debt. Because manufacturing was on the decline, fewer start-up companies were approaching the lending institutions, so the government loosened up the rules (while increasing the insurable deposit limit) to allow "investments" in more high risk ventures, most of which turned out to be frauds, or worse, money laundering operations for drug criminals. This includes Whitewater, Flowerwood, and Castle Grande. Despite shifting the S&L loss primarily onto the taxpayers (to reassure foreign investors that the taxpayers still made America a safe place to park their surplus cash) the government plunged further into debt.

 

[doser]

I think they call that preliminary bankruptcy no?

 

[DrFever]

In short, the United States is in deep trouble. We have lost a huge amount of our manufacturing capacity, and those products we still make do not compete well on the world market, despite the steady devaluation of the dollar. In short we have vast debts to pay and little to pay them with. Like the foolish Farmer we have sold the machinery that allowed us to prosper, and we stand around shaking our investment portfolios back and forth in the hopes that the money inside will somehow grow all by itself. It won't. It never has. The very best that can be said is that money gets moved from one person to the other.

 

[mame]

Actually printing money has led to stronger exports(this is merchandise, manufactored goods show a similiar although not as robust trend):

Furthermore, qe1 and qe2 have helped reduce the burden of debt on both the public and private sector, the latter being immensely important to any prospects for recovery.

 

[mame]

Cutting spending = more stable financial future = less interest paid = less debt = less taxes = more private sector capital = less unemployment

Wrong.

Cutting spending right now leads to fewer jobs, because you are removing demand from the economy which means less revenue and growth - which worsens our fiscal situation and further worsens unemployment, which then contracts private investment further, worsens unemployment, reduces revenue and over and over again... Deflation takes hold, and debt becomes even more of a burden... Austerity is NOT expansionary... And you can take that to the bank.