UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
i bought a 10.5 oz can of chicken noodle soup the other day for $0.59.
Jobs Report A Sign Of Things To Come
- Thread starter mame
- Start date
mame
Well-Known Member
Is it just me or have food prices trended back downwards a bit? I usually spend $60-80 at the grocery store per week and this week I only spent ~$50; seems a bit off... I didn't forget anything either (except damn Kabob sticks! grrr!). Maybe I'm just getting better at shopping? IDK...
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
the store i live near has been running a special on hamburger patties. the 3 pound bags that usually go for $8-$10 are selling for $3.99. i bought 4 packages the other day.
that is 12 pounds of meat for $15.96. i don't know why they are not all gone. i walk by them every day just to see if they are still there.
if they ever get too low, i am going to buy the shit out of whatever is left and worry about space in my freezer later.
Johnnyorganic
Well-Known Member
Was all this precious LOCAL infrastructure not crumbling prior to the last stimulus?
If infrastructure is so important, why did not the local jurisdictions maintain them when times were good?
The last Stimulus failed and Obama joked about his previous claim of shovel ready jobs.
A second Stimulus will not be any different. When it fails, the same refrain will be heard form the Left: It was not big enough.
Bullshit.
It failed because it was ill conceived, and executed badly. Obama and the Democratic Congress fooled the American people once, it will not be so easy a second time.
And all this ignores the fundamental point. Local infrastructure is NOT a federal issue. If government chooses to go into debt to repair it; the appropriate government to do so is LOCAL.
Now, if you happen to include Transportation in your definition of infrastructure, you would be incorrect. Transportation is fully funded. We pay plenty of tolls, state and federal excise fuel taxes, and state and federal D.O.T. regulatory fees.
If government siphons off of those dedicated Transportation funds to non-Transportation initiatives, that is on them. I will not reward incompetence.
mame
Well-Known Member
The left was saying that the stimulus wasn't big enough BEFORE it even went through, I agree it was a failure of Obama and the democratic congress to make it work - but because it wasn't big enough (and the right things... 40% of it was tax cuts, most of which was saved). Your argument that we shouldn't do anymore sounds like "we tried it, kind of half assed-like and it didn't work so we aren't going to do it again - even if doing it right will solve the problem"... bill Maher says it best, The administration will be a failure if in "four years the administration never actually tries democratic policies."... Because if the stimulus was the way it should have been, it would've been over 1 trillion and all of it would've been direct government spending, not tax cuts and not financial aid to states.
Johnnyorganic
Well-Known Member
You love to mention those 'tax cuts.'
Which taxes were cut exactly? A tax cut is across the board.
The truth is those 'tax cuts' were not cuts at all, were they?
They were targeted tax CREDITS; most directed to benefit favored Democratic constituencies and initiatives.
At this point, I must agree with William A. Jacobson when he writes:
mame
Well-Known Member
What a joke. You're still on about the confidence fairy, there is no point in arguing with you. Listen, the empirical evidence suggests that you can't induce business investment through "confidence"(failed "expansionary" austerity measures in Greece have shown that quite well actually) if there is no demand for their product there is no incentive to expand; The most effective way for government to stimulate demand is via direct government spending, the more material and labor intensive the better - infrastructure being one of the best possible investments.
Cutting government or switching presidents isn't going to make business invest in the economy, only demand will.
Cutting government or switching presidents isn't going to make business invest in the economy, only demand will.
Johnnyorganic
Well-Known Member
There is no 'fairy.' There either is confidence or there is not. We've been through this.
However, you were correct when you stated, 'What a joke.'
Because when you stated that the economy does not NEED to go through cycles as if we were still on the Gold Standard; that's when I got the joke.
Economies go through natural cycles regardless of the base currency.
And how does one spur demand, Perfessor?
The Porkulus failed yet you seem to think that one great big failure deserves another.
Perhaps the answer is for government to get out of the way and leave the private sector free to do what it does best.
mame
Well-Known Member
There are real business cycles but we are not in one, and they are actually quite uncommon in fiat currency compared to the gold standard. When we were on the gold standard every year of GDP growth came with year of contraction, ever since we left the gold standard the Federal reserve has averaged a 4:1 growth:recession ratio. I'll say it again, "the Great Moderation".There is no 'fairy.' There either is confidence or there is not. We've been through this.
However, you were correct when you stated, 'What a joke.'
Because when you stated that the economy does not NEED to go through cycles as if we were still on the Gold Standard; that's when I got the joke.
Economies go through natural cycles regardless of the base currency.
Austerity is not expansionary therefore the confidence fairy is a farce, it's quite simple. Obama leaving office will not create some magical stream of investment, demand will; Why do you righties constantly abandon the laws of supply and demand when they are not in your favor (every single demand scarce downturn) and then cling to supply and demand when it means helping make things easier on the supply side (ala the war on labor in the mid-late 70's, which was warranted because it was a supply side crunch...)? You can't only play one side, especially when that side is enjoying low low tax rates, record profits, and is not investing in expanding jobs BECAUSE DEMAND IS INSUFFICIENT TO DO SO - not because of some fairytale lack of confidence. If you need more proof take a look at 10 year interest rates, which mark my words (bookmark this page yo!) interest rates will remain low as long as we remain in a liquidity trap - just as Keynes predicted long before we got into this mess.
And the "porkulus" "failed" because it wasn't big enough and because it was made up of the wrong things - not because stimulus does not work. If you hired someone to do a job you needed done and they half-assed it that doesn't mean it can't be done or that you told them to do it wrong - it means that that guy you hired cut corners and basically just flat out failed to do the job correctly... Keynesian economists predicted the Obama stimulus to be insufficient and it was, that is a case for MORE spending not LESS. Time to go back and do the job right.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
exploit workers? ship jobs to overseas sweatshops? form monopolies? sell unsafe products in unregulated markets?
Is that the "normal" everyday price for all 10.5 oz cans of soup in your local Grocery store? Or was it on sale and you had a coupon? I can get soup for free by stealing it, but I don't consider the cost of soup to be "Free".
If the tax cuts really were the cause of all the economic bad times, then shouldn't the bad times have started way back in 2001 with the cuts? Instead we had growth and in some areas ( Equities and housing) we had a huge GROWTH SPURT ( they call those bubbles). So the Tax cuts probably started inflating the bubbles, and when those bubbles popped the global economy went in the shitter right? But they had to rescue us from the Dot Com bubble of '95-'00, so thats why they started inflating in the first place, and it DID save us. Now here we all are bitching about having to take the medicine again, refuse the medicine and the disease only gets worse with time. Eventually the Medicine will be ineffective and the host will die. Everyone knows what the medicine is...Tighten your belts, buy things on sale, throw convenience out the window and do for yourself if you are able, Grow a garden, work a under the table job, pay off debt, stop borrowing money, become more self sufficient, put some cash away for a rainy day. And thats what the average person is doing, its necessary to rebuild capital so that we may invest again in the future when the outlook is not so bleak. The government sees it all another way, they want to try and blow another bubble somewhere to save us from ourselves yet again, to kick the can down the road and refuse the Medicine due to its bad taste and political weight. The government wants to use itself as a surrogate consumer to replace what everyone stopped spending. In order to do that it needs to tax each worker approx $14,000 each year to balance ins and outs so that the Debt no longer increases.
How I came up with the $14,000 figure was this:
113 million employed in the USA, this years deficit is $1.65 trillion
1.65 trillion divided by 113 million workers = $14,601
I hope everyone is saving more than that every year, cuz thats what it costs. All Payments will be born by the taxpayer, if not you, then your children and grandchildren, With interest to boot!
If you are just going to take it out of folks who are making more than 250k a year, well then about 1 in 50 workers makes that much, so approx 2, 260,000 people in USA making more than 250k. so 1.65 trillion divided by 2.26 million = $730,088 is going to have to be collected from those few people.
Is any of this really possible?
How I came up with the $14,000 figure was this:
113 million employed in the USA, this years deficit is $1.65 trillion
1.65 trillion divided by 113 million workers = $14,601
I hope everyone is saving more than that every year, cuz thats what it costs. All Payments will be born by the taxpayer, if not you, then your children and grandchildren, With interest to boot!
If you are just going to take it out of folks who are making more than 250k a year, well then about 1 in 50 workers makes that much, so approx 2, 260,000 people in USA making more than 250k. so 1.65 trillion divided by 2.26 million = $730,088 is going to have to be collected from those few people.
Is any of this really possible?
Johnnyorganic
Well-Known Member
Typical anti-business Proggie response.
I expected no less.
California is hemorrhaging jobs as companies are relocating out of state. States like Texas, Utah, Florida, and Arizona are the destinations of these companies.
Ask yourself: Why is that?
Companies Are Leaving California in Record Numbers, and It Might Get Worse
Examples include:
Highest corporate income tax on the PLANET. And that does not even include the fact that the owners of Corporations are DOUBLE-TAXED thanks to the Capital Gains tax.
The NLRB attempting to prevent a Corporation in a Union Shop state from opening a NEW assembly plant in an At-Will state.
EPA regulations decreeing spilled milk as a hazardous material spill.
As far as 'unsafe' products (like tobacco, and hot coffee being hot) are concerned: CAVEAT EMPTOR.
I expected no less.
If you mean 'create jobs,' then yes.
California is hemorrhaging jobs as companies are relocating out of state. States like Texas, Utah, Florida, and Arizona are the destinations of these companies.
Ask yourself: Why is that?
Companies Are Leaving California in Record Numbers, and It Might Get Worse
Actually I was thinking of eliminating the burdensome taxes and regulation which cause those corporations to go offshore in the FIRST fucking place.
Examples include:
Highest corporate income tax on the PLANET. And that does not even include the fact that the owners of Corporations are DOUBLE-TAXED thanks to the Capital Gains tax.
The NLRB attempting to prevent a Corporation in a Union Shop state from opening a NEW assembly plant in an At-Will state.
EPA regulations decreeing spilled milk as a hazardous material spill.
Non-GOVERNMENTAL monopolies have been prohibited by law for at least a century.
I never said 'unregulated.' So let's be clear.
As far as 'unsafe' products (like tobacco, and hot coffee being hot) are concerned: CAVEAT EMPTOR.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
not anti-business, just realistic about how they operate.Typical anti-business Proggie response.
I expected no less.
gotta love those minimum wage jobs in the blazing deserts of texas and arizona!
what state leads in minimum wage jobs there, johnny? how does getting by on $7.25 an hour sound to you?
i couldn't put gas in my tank at $3 an hour more than that.
and do you think they would pay that wage if there was no minimum wage law, or would they exploit their workers for all they are worth?
the highest corporate tax rate? kindly blow that false talking point out your ass.
after all is said and done, american businesses pay one of the lowest effective tax rates in the world.
the spilled milk being hazardous does surprise me. i'm sure there is some reasoning, even if it is bad reasoning.
all that "burdensome regulation", eh?
anyone who still supports these anti-trust laws is clearly anti-business and probably a filthy prog, right?
i was talking about how companies might produce a product that does not meet our safety regulations, so they go sell it in another country where their unsafe product passes muster.
to the detriment of the consumer's health.
Translated
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
swing and a miss. but nice try.
what i meant is that there may be ramifications of spilled milk that i do not know of or understand.
but what the hell, let me just go flood my crops with spilled milk and watch them take off! i'm sure there is no hazard to that
Charlie Ventura
Active Member
Bill Maher says it best? Now THAT explains a lot about your posts, mame.
Look, if government spends a dollar on "shovel ready jobs," where exactly does that dollar come from? It comes out of the private sector in the form of taxes, is borrowed or printed. If its borrowed or printed, we are in effect taxed through inflation. Why do you have so much confidence in government and so little in the private sector? Lets see, you're what, about 19 or 20 years old? You're in college correct? Are you taking economic courses in the college you're attending? What's the political bent of your professors? Are you being misled? Honestly, have you asked you self that question?
mame
Well-Known Member
I dont really listen to Maher much actually, but it's a quote that stuck with me - he just happens to be the guy who said it. Although I will admit his show is pretty good, being on HBO gives him some wiggle room with his comedy; He is a comedian afterall. I get most of my economic views from Krugman, DeLong, Klein, Koo, school... I do find it important to pay attention to alternative views though, I read John Taylor on occassion.
Also, it's not that I dont have confidence in the private sector I just recognize that the only player willing to make any significant moves ATM to alleviate unemployment is the government. The private sector will not hire until there is demand to support new hiring; We happen to need infrastructure repair in the U.S. and interest rates are at all time lows, because unemployment is high there are no crowding out effects, etc. Now is the perfect time for government to do it's job. In normal times(full employment), it is the governments job to sit back and let the markets work... but these aren't normal times, are they?
oh and I'm 22, not 19... Not that it matters, your perception is that I'm young and gullible or whatever... I'm used to it, people are always trying to marginalize my opinions based on my age; Sort of a kind of character assassination people usually bust out when the argument isn't going their way (I'm not saying that's what you're doing but whenever I go to family events or anything of the sort I'm marginalized as "just a kid").
Yeah, 22 year olds are well known for their insight and wisdom. I tell that to my kids too, they are older than you are, they don't listen either. They just know they have it all figured out.
When you get older you will have formed opinions of your very own, instead of just jumping on the bandwagon consensus touted by the academia.