|
|
Post by aztecwin on Jul 1, 2010 21:12:24 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by AlwaysAnAztec on Jul 2, 2010 8:40:10 GMT -8
Well, can't read the article as the site is blocked here at work. I'm surprised that they blocked the "wing-nut" category of web sites. ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Jul 2, 2010 10:30:20 GMT -8
What she is talking about is the "velocity of money". If you took classes in economics or finance you are familiar with the concept.
|
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Jul 2, 2010 11:52:27 GMT -8
What we have here is the classic "Demand Side" vs "Supply Side" economic debate. I am more sympathetic than some on the Right to unemployment insurance, but I do recognize, partly from personal experience and that of people I have known, that there are indeed some who don't look too hard for jobs as long as money, almost any amount of money, is coming in.
Pelosi is dreaming if she thinks that unemployment insurance is going to have any great effect on the economy. She knows nothing and is merely mouthing the party line. If we are going to grant unemployment insurance, let's admit that it's welfare. It may be a good thing to do (though there are limits), but let's not call it something that it is not.
AzWm
|
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Jul 2, 2010 15:04:34 GMT -8
What she is talking about is the "velocity of money". If you took classes in economics or finance you are familiar with the concept. Please spare us that idea. The source of that money must be in the private sector to be sustainable. Surely you remember that part of your classes in Economics! If not, just think of the chances of a pepetual motion machine. Pelosi is an idiot and even you must recognize that.  |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Jul 2, 2010 15:06:37 GMT -8
What we have here is the classic "Demand Side" vs "Supply Side" economic debate. I am more sympathetic than some on the Right to unemployment insurance, but I do recognize, partly from personal experience and that of people I have known, that there are indeed some who don't look too hard for jobs as long as money, almost any amount of money, is coming in. Pelosi is dreaming if she thinks that unemployment insurance is going to have any great effect on the economy. She knows nothing and is merely mouthing the party line. If we are going to grant unemployment insurance, let's admit that it's welfare. It may be a good thing to do (though there are limits), but let's not call it something that it is not. AzWm Unemployment is a lifeline, not an economic engine. |
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Jul 2, 2010 17:15:05 GMT -8
What she is talking about is the "velocity of money". If you took classes in economics or finance you are familiar with the concept. Please spare us that idea. The source of that money must be in the private sector to be sustainable. Surely you remember that part of your classes in Economics! If not, just think of the chances of a pepetual motion machine. Pelosi is an idiot and even you must recognize that. Guess you are not an old farm boy. Priming the pump is a wonderful metaphor. The money does not have to be from the private sector, it just needs to go there. You have forgotten too much. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Jul 3, 2010 5:57:59 GMT -8
Please spare us that idea. The source of that money must be in the private sector to be sustainable. Surely you remember that part of your classes in Economics! If not, just think of the chances of a pepetual motion machine. Pelosi is an idiot and even you must recognize that. Guess you are not an old farm boy. Priming the pump is a wonderful metaphor. The money does not have to be from the private sector, it just needs to go there. You have forgotten too much. You prime a pump, not use the "prime water" to grow your crops. To be sustainable it must be from the private sector. |
|
|
|
Post by ptsdthor on Jul 3, 2010 8:36:07 GMT -8
Give money to a welfare recipient - their money goes to groceries, rent and gasoline. Little or no jobs created as the infrastructure for those basic services don't much rely on that demographic. Give money to an unemployed worker, their money goes to the places noted above but with a few more "must have" long term commitments - educational loans, car payments, insurance premiums, HOAs, etc. Give money to a person who is underemployed, he does the same as the worker who is on unemployment. They fund the bare minimum in the economy. Give money to a fully employed worker and the diversity of money outlay increases significantly. It now includes investments, entertainment, large purchases, renovations, new cars, new homes, etc. Now who is best suited to create a fully employed worker? Government or the private sector? Giving money to the masses via tax breaks for capital investments, tax breaks for exports, tax breaks for hiring, tax breaks for inner city job sites, etc, etc., with the requirement that the investor mingles their personal investments with government investments creates jobs for fully employed workers. And fully employed workers demand services that create jobs. What a concept?? With one scenario, the money from the government goes to the latrine with great "velocity". In the other, the government money goes around the economy many times before it finds itself in the latrine. But one economic engine is being pushed by Democrats and the other is being pushed by "heartless" Republicans.  Oh those evil Republicans and corporations... And the Democrats are beside themselves wondering how the economy is going into a double dip recession while having spent all that money on make work jobs and unemployment checks.....Gee I don't understand?? |
|
|
|
Post by waztec on Jul 3, 2010 9:00:01 GMT -8
What she is talking about is the "velocity of money". If you took classes in economics or finance you are familiar with the concept. Please spare us that idea. The source of that money must be in the private sector to be sustainable. Surely you remember that part of your classes in Economics! If not, just think of the chances of a pepetual motion machine. Pelosi is an idiot and even you must recognize that. Pelosi is not an idiot. Unemployment insurance goes right into the economy as people spend the money to live-as they must. This is as opposed to a tax cut for the wealthy that is immediately banked, because the affluent are under no such pressure to spend. People on unemployment are forced to put their money back into the economy, because a greater portion of their income must be used to live. The rich can only consume so much, no matter what their income happens to be. It is called in-elasticity of demand. Reagan was the idiot. |
|
|
|
Post by ptsdthor on Jul 3, 2010 9:21:00 GMT -8
Please spare us that idea. The source of that money must be in the private sector to be sustainable. Surely you remember that part of your classes in Economics! If not, just think of the chances of a pepetual motion machine. Pelosi is an idiot and even you must recognize that. Pelosi is not an idiot. Unemployment insurance goes right into the economy as people spend the money to live-as they must. This is as opposed to a tax cut for the wealthy that is immediately banked, because the affluent are under no such pressure to spend. People on unemployment are forced to put their money back into the economy, because a greater portion of their income must be used to live. The rich can only consume so much, no matter what their income happens to be. It is called in-elasticity of demand. Reagan was the idiot. A tax cut that is immediately banked?? Is there no outlay first for capital equipment to receive a tax credit for capital investment? Is there no down payment, closing costs, appraiser fees, inspector fees, Realtor fees first outlayed when receiving a first time home buyer credit? Reagan had more common sense than all of the Ivy league pols combined. Obama is a clueless clown lapping up the pablum from the ideologues he was raised with. And look at the direction of the economy under his guidance..... it shows. Oh but with Democrats in control of both houses starting in 2007, it is all Bush's fault ....or wait.... Reagan's |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Jul 3, 2010 9:57:42 GMT -8
Please spare us that idea. The source of that money must be in the private sector to be sustainable. Surely you remember that part of your classes in Economics! If not, just think of the chances of a pepetual motion machine. Pelosi is an idiot and even you must recognize that. Pelosi is not an idiot. Unemployment insurance goes right into the economy as people spend the money to live-as they must. This is as opposed to a tax cut for the wealthy that is immediately banked, because the affluent are under no such pressure to spend. People on unemployment are forced to put their money back into the economy, because a greater portion of their income must be used to live. The rich can only consume so much, no matter what their income happens to be. It is called in-elasticity of demand. Reagan was the idiot. You are so wrong! Look at the posts above and below yours. The only people who think like you seem to, are those who have read and studied very little about Economics or have studied some theory, like John M. Keyes, and did not go far enough into it to see that it has never worked. You do not even have to think in abstract terms to see that a dollar invested is more efficient than a dollar spent. |
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Jul 3, 2010 11:08:29 GMT -8
Give money to a welfare recipient - their money goes to groceries, rent and gasoline. Little or no jobs created as the infrastructure for those basic services don't much rely on that demographic. Give money to an unemployed worker, their money goes to the places noted above but with a few more "must have" long term commitments - educational loans, car payments, insurance premiums, HOAs, etc. Give money to a person who is underemployed, he does the same as the worker who is on unemployment. They fund the bare minimum in the economy. Give money to a fully employed worker and the diversity of money outlay increases significantly. It now includes investments, entertainment, large purchases, renovations, new cars, new homes, etc. Now who is best suited to create a fully employed worker? Government or the private sector? Giving money to the masses via tax breaks for capital investments, tax breaks for exports, tax breaks for hiring, tax breaks for inner city job sites, etc, etc., with the requirement that the investor mingles their personal investments with government investments creates jobs for fully employed workers. And fully employed workers demand services that create jobs. What a concept?? With one scenario, the money from the government goes to the latrine with great "velocity". In the other, the government money goes around the economy many times before it finds itself in the latrine. But one economic engine is being pushed by Democrats and the other is being pushed by "heartless" Republicans. Oh those evil Republicans and corporations... And the Democrats are beside themselves wondering how the economy is going into a double dip recession while having spent all that money on make work jobs and unemployment checks.....Gee I don't understand?? Lots of opinions, but no facts. One quick question, does the money that goes to rent, groceries and gasoline get into the private economy? |
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Jul 3, 2010 11:10:56 GMT -8
Guess you are not an old farm boy. Priming the pump is a wonderful metaphor. The money does not have to be from the private sector, it just needs to go there. You have forgotten too much. You prime a pump, not use the "prime water" to grow your crops. To be sustainable it must be from the private sector. Keep up here. Of course, you don't use the prime water to irragate the field. You use the water that comes from the well after you have primed the pump. Geez. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Jul 3, 2010 11:23:58 GMT -8
You prime a pump, not use the "prime water" to grow your crops. To be sustainable it must be from the private sector. Keep up here. Of course, you don't use the prime water to irragate the field. You use the water that comes from the well after you have primed the pump. Geez. That is where you miss the boat. Just as there is no perpetual motion, economic activity can not be sustained by giving taxpayer money back to taxpayers to spend to create jobs. Even if the inefficiency that is caused by the "handling fee" that government extracts to recycle tax money were the only resistance to perpetual motion of money, ( which it is not) you have diminishing returns. Here is more on Pelosi idiocy. www.weeklystandard.com/articles/economics-dummies |
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Jul 3, 2010 14:13:00 GMT -8
Keep up here. Of course, you don't use the prime water to irragate the field. You use the water that comes from the well after you have primed the pump. Geez. That is where you miss the boat. Just as there is no perpetual motion, economic activity can not be sustained by giving taxpayer money back to taxpayers to spend to create jobs. Even if the inefficiency that is caused by the "handling fee" that government extracts to recycle tax money were the only resistance to perpetual motion of money, ( which it is not) you have diminishing returns. Here is more on Pelosi idiocy. www.weeklystandard.com/articles/economics-dummiesI never said it sustained it. I said it started it. That is the pump priming metaphor. I think you know this. As usual you have no interest in discussion. You are just here to annoy. You must have been hell on wheels in the chief's mess, especially when you got some seniority. How was the wardroom? It must have been hard, knowing that every little rosie cheeked reserve ensign was senior to you, and always would be. How knows, maybe the guy you annoyed there was writing your fitness report. Is that why you retired early? |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Jul 3, 2010 14:39:37 GMT -8
That is where you miss the boat. Just as there is no perpetual motion, economic activity can not be sustained by giving taxpayer money back to taxpayers to spend to create jobs. Even if the inefficiency that is caused by the "handling fee" that government extracts to recycle tax money were the only resistance to perpetual motion of money, ( which it is not) you have diminishing returns. Here is more on Pelosi idiocy. www.weeklystandard.com/articles/economics-dummiesI never said it sustained it. I said it started it. That is the pump priming metaphor. I think you know this. As usual you have no interest in discussion. You are just here to annoy. You must have been hell on wheels in the chief's mess, especially when you got some seniority. How was the wardroom? It must have been hard, knowing that every little rosie cheeked reserve ensign was senior to you, and always would be. How knows, maybe the guy you annoyed there was writing your fitness report. Is that why you retired early? I think you know when you have been bested. By trying to turn the conversation with a poor attempt at a personal insult you have thrown up your hands. I get your pump priming metaphor. I also get the idea that it works just like the "Stimulus Bill". We have lost 3 million jobs and counting since that bill that would insure unemployment would never go above 8 percent was passed. The real pump primer is tax policy and sensible regulation rather than killer taxes and stifling government regulation. |
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Jul 3, 2010 14:44:09 GMT -8
Nailed it, didn't I?
|
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Jul 3, 2010 16:09:45 GMT -8
Please spare us that idea. The source of that money must be in the private sector to be sustainable. Surely you remember that part of your classes in Economics! If not, just think of the chances of a pepetual motion machine. Pelosi is an idiot and even you must recognize that. Pelosi is not an idiot. Unemployment insurance goes right into the economy as people spend the money to live-as they must. This is as opposed to a tax cut for the wealthy that is immediately banked, because the affluent are under no such pressure to spend. People on unemployment are forced to put their money back into the economy, because a greater portion of their income must be used to live. The rich can only consume so much, no matter what their income happens to be. It is called in-elasticity of demand. Reagan was the idiot. Hey, W, what do you think rich people do with their money, stuff it in their mattresses? Come on, now, let's get real. The rich, which by some definitions (I'll let you guess whose) means anyone earning over $200,000 a year, put any money they do not need for day-to-day living expenses into saving accounts, mutual funds, stock purchases, etc. The institutions receiving the money then put it to work by funding various productive enterprises. That's the way the economy grows. The idea that it's better for the government to figure out where money should go than private firms is simply without merit. The basic question is this; should we favor capital formation or income redistribution? AzWm |
|
|
|
Post by ptsdthor on Jul 3, 2010 16:44:22 GMT -8
Give money to a welfare recipient - their money goes to groceries, rent and gasoline. Little or no jobs created as the infrastructure for those basic services don't much rely on that demographic. Give money to an unemployed worker, their money goes to the places noted above but with a few more "must have" long term commitments - educational loans, car payments, insurance premiums, HOAs, etc. Give money to a person who is underemployed, he does the same as the worker who is on unemployment. They fund the bare minimum in the economy. Give money to a fully employed worker and the diversity of money outlay increases significantly. It now includes investments, entertainment, large purchases, renovations, new cars, new homes, etc. Now who is best suited to create a fully employed worker? Government or the private sector? Giving money to the masses via tax breaks for capital investments, tax breaks for exports, tax breaks for hiring, tax breaks for inner city job sites, etc, etc., with the requirement that the investor mingles their personal investments with government investments creates jobs for fully employed workers. And fully employed workers demand services that create jobs. What a concept?? With one scenario, the money from the government goes to the latrine with great "velocity". In the other, the government money goes around the economy many times before it finds itself in the latrine. But one economic engine is being pushed by Democrats and the other is being pushed by "heartless" Republicans. Oh those evil Republicans and corporations... And the Democrats are beside themselves wondering how the economy is going into a double dip recession while having spent all that money on make work jobs and unemployment checks.....Gee I don't understand?? Lots of opinions, but no facts. One quick question, does the money that goes to rent, groceries and gasoline get into the private economy? No facts? Are new homes and cars purchased by those on welfare or unemployment in your world of facts? Sure. money from the government spent on groceries, rent and gas goes into the private economy. But don't you agree that that a significant portion of the money spent on gas goes off-shore and out of the US economy immediately? And don't you also agree that the demand for housing and groceries are the same (or perhaps even less) as before the recession? If so, there is no job growth in those sectors brought about by government spending targeting the unemployed. Thus the proverbial "saved" job gets claimed by Obama with this approach. A saved job when employers are contracting are fine but a leader would find a way for employers to expand job demand. But make-work government jobs do not have legs. They end when the funding ends. And the way the deficits and debt is going under the increase in Socialism with this Government, that will be sooner rather than later. |
|
Oh those evil Republicans and corporations...