Jobs report

Dungheap said:
You want to implement policies (tighter monetary and fiscal policies) that would shrink the economy and increase unemployment in the short-term.
Click to expand...

I would have no problem with that if I felt the short term struggle would lead to stronger and more sustainable growth in the future. Instead we are on this meddling economic path with slight but insufficient growth and weak signs that higher growth is around the corner. On top of that we still have exploding debt.
 
what were the bank broker rules on who could be a broker in the banks while this part of the law was held in limbo for years by the Bush admin
 
Superfreak said:
Had we done so when I first stated it, we would have been out of the mess by now and would not have accumulated another $5 Trillion in debt.
Click to expand...

While it's fun to play counterfactuals, I don't see the relevance where you're bitching about unemployment and a slow economy now while promoting polciies that would mean higher unemployment and a shrinking economy now.


Superfreak said:
You want to borrow even more and stick the bill on future generations.
Click to expand...

Not really. I want the government to pursue the best policy options at the present time and spending more is the best policy option at present.
 
cawacko said:
I would have no problem with that if I felt the short term struggle would lead to stronger and more sustainable growth in the future. Instead we are on this meddling economic path with slight but insufficient growth and weak signs that higher growth is around the corner. On top of that we still have exploding debt.
Click to expand...


see what they really want?


they call what we have now meddling even after convictions
 
evince said:
first you have to EXPLAIN how its NOT like the SEC release says
Click to expand...

Dear moron... it is EXACTLY what the SEC release says it is. YOU simply don't understand what the release says. The rules they put in place are EXEMPTIONS for banks in certain situations to AVOID being defined as a broker and thus falling under the purview of the SEC.
 
cawacko said:
I would have no problem with that if I felt the short term struggle would lead to stronger and more sustainable growth in the future. Instead we are on this meddling economic path with slight but insufficient growth and weak signs that higher growth is around the corner. On top of that we still have exploding debt.
Click to expand...


I'd hve no problem with it either if it was actually a good idea, but I don't think there is much evidence at all that it would lead to stronger and more sustainable growth in the future. Also, too, it would mean lots and lots of human suffering.

We don't really have exploding debt.
 
Dungheap said:
I'd hve no problem with it either if it was actually a good idea, but I don't think there is much evidence at all that it would lead to stronger and more sustainable growth in the future. Also, too, it would mean lots and lots of human suffering.

We don't really have exploding debt.
Click to expand...


they prefer profits for the moneyed interests over caring about human suffering.

The American people are figuring this out now
 
Dungheap said:
While it's fun to play counterfactuals, I don't see the relevance where you're bitching about unemployment and a slow economy now while promoting polciies that would mean higher unemployment and a shrinking economy now.
Click to expand...

Dearest Dung... again... there is no end in sight to the high unemployment given current policies. Yes, doing what is necessary for long term prosperity means we have to actually pay for what we are using and that means short term pain (relative to where we are now). You want to avoid that by forcing the pain onto future generations by borrowing more today and making them pay for it down the road.

Not really. I want the government to pursue the best policy options at the present time and spending more is the best policy option at present.
Click to expand...

Which is exactly what I said you wanted... more spending now on borrowed money... money that future generations will have to pay back all because you don't want to pay for it today. You are going to fuck over future generations with that 'best policy option' of yours.

You are suggesting that we do what is 'best' for us in the short term and fuck the long term consequences. That mentality is why unemployment remains high.
 
Superfreak said:
Dearest Dung... again... there is no end in sight to the high unemployment given current policies. Yes, doing what is necessary for long term prosperity means we have to actually pay for what we are using and that means short term pain (relative to where we are now). You want to avoid that by forcing the pain onto future generations by borrowing more today and making them pay for it down the road.


Which is exactly what I said you wanted... more spending now on borrowed money... money that future generations will have to pay back all because you don't want to pay for it today. You are going to fuck over future generations with that 'best policy option' of yours.

You are suggesting that we do what is 'best' for us in the short term and fuck the long term consequences. That mentality is why unemployment remains high.
Click to expand...


You're quite simply out of your fucking mind, but I'll at least take the concession that the policies you want to impose would mean higher unemployment and lower growth than we have now.
 
Dungheap said:
You're quite simply out of your fucking mind, but I'll at least take the concession that the policies you want to impose would mean higher unemployment and lower growth than we have now.
Click to expand...

Tell us then Dung... who pays for the excess borrowing you want to do today? You never answer that.

What happens in 10/20 years when the bonds come due?

Why do you avoid that?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top