Mr Neutron
Well-Known Member
Unfortunately we do not have exports
Sure we do. We export our military wherever the POTUS gets a boner for. We give them all the bombs and bullets they could ever handle.
Unfortunately we do not have exports
Inflation doesn't always result in a destroyed currency. That is a false assumption. How does printing more money put the problem on future generations?
We need to deal with the immediate problem now. That problem is unemployment, not debt. If we don't fix the unemployment, we'll fall into a depression. A depression will result in much much more debt. Printing money actually decreases the value of the debt, it doesn't add to it.
And that interest and that debt becomes worth less if we print more money.
In a liquidity trap, printing money will not lead to significant growth nor will it lead to significant inflation unless you commit to enough to push interest rates negative - but this is just a theory, I dont think it's ever been done. If Bernkanke pursued a policy like this it would define his chairmanship; Whether it pulls the U.S. out of the liquidity trap or causes a myriad of undesirable consequences that will only make it worse will surely be the story of this not-recession either way.
The only safe and sure option, of course, is fiscal stimulus but it's politically unlikely - print away!
Profits aren't the problem, aggregate demand is; In fact, profits are at record highs.You're not taking into account the fact that business men and capitol investors are sitting on their hands and part of the reason for that is the large debt. Think of it like this: If you are an investor with $1 million ready to invest, which market would you rather invest in:
1) A market where debt is being handled without printing money so that you know your $1,000,000 will be worth $1,000,000 a year from now
or
2) A market where debt is being increased and money is being printed so your $1,000,000 will be worth $984,251.97 (Inflation rates based on 09-10) a year from now due to inflation.
Which is more appealing? You want to talk about jobs, we need to create a market where investing and creating jobs can actually prove profitable.
You're not taking into account the fact that business men and capitol investors are sitting on their hands and part of the reason for that is the large debt.
Think of it like this: If you are an investor with $1 million ready to invest, which market would you rather invest in:
1) A market where debt is being handled without printing money so that you know your $1,000,000 will be worth $1,000,000 a year from now
or
2) A market where debt is being increased and money is being printed so your $1,000,000 will be worth $984,251.97 (Inflation rates based on 09-10) a year from now due to inflation. Which is more appealing?
You want to talk about jobs, we need to create a market where investing and creating jobs can actually prove profitable.
disagree. what you are going to get is a huge tax decrease. the best stumulus money can buy.
Question - I don't understand why you want to make your argument based on stating something that is blatantly not true. Why bother doing that? What do you get out of it? What you're saying has no basis in reality what so ever and is proven false. So why insist on it?
The best stimulus money can buy is unquestionably food stamps. That's not my opinion, it's a proven fact that food stamps give the best economic return on your money. For every dollar the government hands out in food stamps, one dollar is directly and immediately spent in the marketplace. Because of the recirculating effect of market spending, the effect on GDP is actually $1.73 increase in GDP for every dollar spent on food stamps.
The effect of tax cuts as stimulus is actually one of the worst you can possibly get (avg $1.02 GDP increase for every dollar spent). Of course that depends on the tax cuts, but almost all tax cuts have less effect on the economy than unemployment benefits, aid to state governments, and infrastructure spending.
What you're saying is 100% false.
No, he didn't make anything up.. What he described is simply a textbook explanation of how government spending multipliers work... In other words... FactsYou are just making shit up. Back up what you're saying with facts or STFU.
People seem to be obsessed with trying to fix our deficit problem right now for some insane reason, but all reasonable people know that with the economy in the shape it's in, it would be impossible to balance the budget. So has a compromise, we should look to long term debt stabilization.
Obviously cutting spending in a recession is a ridiculous notion because the consequence will just be more job loss which leads to more unemployment, which leads to less revenue which will lead to bigger deficits.
So that means what we really need to do is print more money so we can spend more on a new infrastructure stimulus plan to put people back to work. Sounds strange but there is a dual benefit here.
By printing more money, we devalue the dollar which actually makes our debt worth less. Also we will be using that money as an economic stimulus which will put people back to work, which will increase tax revenue, which will stabilize deficits in the long run.
Print more money! Spend more! Vote Democrat!
No, he didn't make anything up.. What he described is simply a textbook explanation of how government spending multipliers work... In other words... Facts
Uhm, every textbook. go to your local library and start looking through economics books; All of them have chapters on spending multipliers.Which textbook is that? The Socialist's Guide to Ruining a Country?
People seem to be obsessed with trying to fix our deficit problem right now for some insane reason, but all reasonable people know that with the economy in the shape it's in, it would be impossible to balance the budget. So has a compromise, we should look to long term debt stabilization.
Obviously cutting spending in a recession is a ridiculous notion because the consequence will just be more job loss which leads to more unemployment, which leads to less revenue which will lead to bigger deficits.
So that means what we really need to do is print more money so we can spend more on a new infrastructure stimulus plan to put people back to work. Sounds strange but there is a dual benefit here.
By printing more money, we devalue the dollar which actually makes our debt worth less. Also we will be using that money as an economic stimulus which will put people back to work, which will increase tax revenue, which will stabilize deficits in the long run.
Print more money! Spend more! Vote Democrat!
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.
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!
Question - I don't understand why you want to make your argument based on stating something that is blatantly not true. Why bother doing that? What do you get out of it? What you're saying has no basis in reality what so ever and is proven false. So why insist on it?
The best stimulus money can buy is unquestionably food stamps. That's not my opinion, it's a proven fact that food stamps give the best economic return on your money. For every dollar the government hands out in food stamps, one dollar is directly and immediately spent in the marketplace. Because of the recirculating effect of market spending, the effect on GDP is actually $1.73 increase in GDP for every dollar spent on food stamps.
The effect of tax cuts as stimulus is actually one of the worst you can possibly get (avg $1.02 GDP increase for every dollar spent). Of course that depends on the tax cuts, but almost all tax cuts have less effect on the economy than unemployment benefits, aid to state governments, and infrastructure spending.
What you're saying is 100% false.