Stay The Course

Watermark said:
Monetarists, which, I am surprised to say, I would side with long before I'd side with the Austrians. One of Krugman's primary tactics is to cite arguments from the Monetarists, which exposes how kooky pop-economists (like Damo cites) have gotten.
Click to expand...

You're suprised at your own beliefs?
 
AssHatZombie said:
You're suprised at your own beliefs?
Click to expand...

Are you trying to say that I'm... a Monetarist? I'm not anything. I'm an interested layman... JUST LIKE YOU! Except I cite REAL ECONOMISTS, and you cite people who are afraid of JJJOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
Watermark said:
Are you trying to say that I'm... a Monetarist? I'm not anything. I'm an interested layman... JUST LIKE YOU! Except I cite REAL ECONOMISTS, and you cite people who are afraid of JJJOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Click to expand...

You're an idiot, for one.

And it is odd you were suprised at your own beliefs.
 
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087
June 19 (Bloomberg) -- European Union leaders spotted the first signs of a “sustainable economic recovery” from the worst slump since World War II and started planning to roll back budget deficits piled up to combat the financial crisis.

In a draft statement at today’s summit in Brussels, the 27 EU heads of state and government said the looming end of the recession makes additional stimulus unnecessary, adding that it is time to start hatching an “exit strategy.” They also agreed to overhaul financial regulation after banking supervision failed to contain the crisis sparked in the U.S. housing market.

“Further budgetary stimulus would not be warranted and attention should shift toward consolidation, keeping pace with economic recovery,” the leaders said in the draft, which was obtained by Bloomberg News. “There is a clear need for a reliable and credible exit strategy.”

The EU leaders’ outlook is more upbeat than that struck last week at a meeting of Group of Eight finance ministers, which ended with a statement noting “signs of stabilization in our economies.” U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner said at those talks that “it’s too early to shift toward policy restraint.”
Click to expand...

Geithner was the stupid idiot in the room. Like usual..
 
Watermark said:
Monetarists, which, I am surprised to say, I would side with long before I'd side with the Austrians. One of Krugman's primary tactics is to cite arguments from the Monetarists, which exposes how kooky pop-economists (like Damo cites) have gotten.
Click to expand...

Even the mighty Krugman did not see this coming though.
 
Watermark said:
No it's not. In fact, the neoclassical schools are usually identified as producing big booms and busts. It happened all the way throughout the 19th centuries - massive booms and long, fruitless busts. Austrians just arrived at the Keynesian boom/bust theory through guesswork, although in actuality it is REALLY an argument against THEIR theory, and it has no support even amongst the conservative schools of real economics.
Click to expand...
People arrive at the boom/bust theory from watching and reading history. It is stupid to ignore evidence because you want to "win". This isn't a win/lose thing, it is something we can all learn from.
 
how about we change the whole economic system in America and force the government to fix everyones personal income to 100k a year. no more, no less. Then they can fix all the prices of market items to yearly sustainable levels so that the companies that make those items only make a 2% profit off of each item. Then consumables, like food, all get harvested and delivered to gov distribution centers to be evenly distributed every three months according to a specific quota per family that's determined by a bipartisan committee formed of the government and FDA.

Then unemployment benefits can be set with no time limit, but limit income to 75k a year. During these periods of unemployment, the receiver can be given a grant to go to college or be assigned training classes for a new specialty of their choice, with the promise of 2 years of government service after they receive the training.

we'll worry about how to pay for it later.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
how about we change the whole economic system in America and force the government to fix everyones personal income to 100k a year. no more, no less. Then they can fix all the prices of market items to yearly sustainable levels so that the companies that make those items only make a 2% profit off of each item. Then consumables, like food, all get harvested and delivered to gov distribution centers to be evenly distributed every three months according to a specific quota per family that's determined by a bipartisan committee formed of the government and FDA.

Then unemployment benefits can be set with no time limit, but limit income to 75k a year. During these periods of unemployment, the receiver can be given a grant to go to college or be assigned training classes for a new specialty of their choice, with the promise of 2 years of government service after they receive the training.

we'll worry about how to pay for it later.
Click to expand...

LOL.

The GDP per capita is around 40k per a person. To give each person 100k per a person, we would need to go 15 trillion or so into debt. Or we'd need to make our currency worthless.
 
Last edited:
Watermark said:
LOL.

The GDP per capita is around 40k per a person. To give each person 100k per a person, we would need to go 15 trillion or so into debt. Or we'd need to make our currency worthless.
Click to expand...

aren't we pretty much doing that now? and it's being told to the american people that this is going to save our economy, so why not go much better and help everyone?

besides, limiting income to 100k a person means you get to enact a confiscation law against all those multi millionaires. That is what will pay for the new stimulus.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
aren't we pretty much doing that now?
Click to expand...

If "pretty much" can be exaggerated to mean 15 trillion and 2 trillion are "pretty much" equal. It would literally be impossible to secure that much debt. I'm not sure if the world economy could handle a request like that.

SmarterThanYou said:
and it's being told to the american people that this is going to save our economy, so why not go much better and help everyone?
Click to expand...

I dunno, a cup of icecream is kinda good, so why not go eat seven or eight tubs, eh? Let's pretend there's no such thing as a happy medium, and no such thing as excess.

SmarterThanYou said:
besides, limiting income to 100k a person means you get to enact a confiscation law against all those multi millionaires. That is what will pay for the new stimulus.
Click to expand...

If we seized the estates of the rich, I'm not sure it would even pay for it. At most for a short period of time. I don't know the net worth of the US; I know we make about 14 trillion or so a year in income.
 
I really like your tactic of going onto other peoples threads, saying "X is so lost" without explanation, leaving, and pretending you've made a profound statement.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top