Here comes the other economic shoe dropping...

[Schneibster]

"I’m talking about a jobs program of a trillion dollars or more. We’ve got to put Americans to work. That’s the only way to revitalize this economy. When people work they earn money, they spend that money, and that’s what gets the economy up and going," Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA) told NBC's "Meet the Press." http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/ ... ogram.html

Are you laughing because you think she's wrong, or because the idiot teabaggers holding the country hostage will never vote for it?

Fair warning: I'm a member of the hippie caucus.

I'm laughing because we don't have $1 trillion to spend.

I guess you're new to the whole economics thing, huh?

We borrow money by issuing Treasury bonds. Currently, return on these bonds is at historic lows- making this the ideal time to borrow. Maybe you missed that small detail.

Just sayin'.

So, she's suggesting that we either borrow $1 trillion from the Chinese or other foreign governments, or issue another $1 trillion in treasury bonds, thereby flooding the money supply (again), and borrowing the money from ourselves.

Bonds aren't money. Welcome to Econ 101.

You're pretending the bond vigilantes will attack; but there isn't a bond vigilante in sight. I repeat, T-bond rates are at historic lows.

We were downgraded by Standard & Poors for a reason.

Well, they just rated a bunch more junk mortgage bonds higher than US debt, so actually, yes, there was a reason, but it didn't have very much to do with our credit-worthiness. It appears to have been a political move, just like rating those junk mortgage bonds highly. Again. Oh, you forgot? Yes, these are the same assholes who rated those same mortgage bonds so highly in the first place, creating the very problem that started all this shit. I'm absolutely certain we should be trusting them on anybody's credit-worthiness, or anything else we want to get ripped off for.

What do you think would happen if we heaped ANOTHER $1 trillion in debt?

Ummm, we'd pay it back over the term of the T-bonds? The economy might get jump-started if the demand that every company in the US says they need got created by people spending money? We might fix the bridges so no more of them fall down like in Minneapolis? We might be able to get the companies to hire some people to meet the demand? The economy might get fixed?

Just sayin'.

It's not just teabaggers who "won't go for it." It's anybody with half a brain. Teabaggers just happen to be right, by chance, on this one. Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

Sorry, I'm a lot more interested in the people who have whole brains. Not to mention the Nobel-prize-winning economists and professors of economics. Of course, you have to stop listening to the ones from the freshwater schools; you want the ones from schools on the coasts, not the idiots from Chicago who caused the problem in the first place and whose cronies are currently stopping anyone from doing anything about it so we don't elect the nigger again.

[Coito ergo sum]

"I’m talking about a jobs program of a trillion dollars or more. We’ve got to put Americans to work. That’s the only way to revitalize this economy. When people work they earn money, they spend that money, and that’s what gets the economy up and going," Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA) told NBC's "Meet the Press." http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/ ... ogram.html

Are you laughing because you think she's wrong, or because the idiot teabaggers holding the country hostage will never vote for it?

Fair warning: I'm a member of the hippie caucus.

I'm laughing because we don't have $1 trillion to spend.

I guess you're new to the whole economics thing, huh?

No, why?

We borrow money by issuing Treasury bonds.

That's one way we borrow money, yes.

Currently, return on these bonds is at historic lows- making this the ideal time to borrow. Maybe you missed that small detail.

I didn't, and your insipid sarcasm is noted.

You might want to check in just a tad bit deeper than the first layer of the epidermis. You might find out, if you actually thought about it, that the ability to issue Treasury Bonds is not a bottomless well of money, and that large sums of money, like, say, oh, a trillion dollars is not chickenfeed, and is not something that economy can necessarily handle.

Note - if the budget deficit rises too much, the government will have to offer higher interest rates to attract buyers of the Treasuries. In the long run, higher government borrowing today will likely mean that taxes will have to rise in the future and this would put a squeeze on spending by private sector businesses and millions of households. Also, issuing a trillion dollars in Treasuries means the gubmint has to spend more each year in debt-interest payments to holders of government bonds and other securities. This involves something called an "opportunity cost" because interest payments could be used in more productive ways. It also represents a transfer of income from people and businesses that pay taxes to those who hold government debt and cause a redistribution of income and wealth in the economy, and not in a way you would find pleasing (i.e. it's reverse Robin Hood). And, a rising share of GDP taken by the state sector has a negative effect on the growth of the private sector of the economy.

These may be things you haven't considered.

Just sayin'.

You're just saying that anytime we need a trillion dollars, it's no big thing just to print the money. Let's just do another trillion dollars of "Quantitative Easing" after all, it'll have no negative effects on the economy and we can borrow as much as we want - there are no repercussions. That's what you're "just sayin'.

So, she's suggesting that we either borrow $1 trillion from the Chinese or other foreign governments, or issue another $1 trillion in treasury bonds, thereby flooding the money supply (again), and borrowing the money from ourselves.

Bonds aren't money. Welcome to Econ 101.

Which you apparently failed. Bonds are vehicles the government uses to raise money. You issue a $1 trillion worth of bonds and sell them.

You're pretending the bond vigilantes will attack; but there isn't a bond vigilante in sight. I repeat, T-bond rates are at historic lows.

I haven't said the bond vigilantes will attack. That must've been someone else you're talking about.

We were downgraded by Standard & Poors for a reason.

Well, they just rated a bunch more junk mortgage bonds higher than US debt, so actually, yes, there was a reason, but it didn't have very much to do with our credit-worthiness. It appears to have been a political move, just like rating those junk mortgage bonds highly. Again. Oh, you forgot? Yes, these are the same assholes who rated those same mortgage bonds so highly in the first place, creating the very problem that started all this shit. I'm absolutely certain we should be trusting them on anybody's credit-worthiness, or anything else we want to get ripped off for.

Gotcha, they are now your political enemy.

What do you think would happen if we heaped ANOTHER $1 trillion in debt?

Ummm, we'd pay it back over the term of the T-bonds?

So, why not issue $5 trillion in bonds? Really jumpstart the economy, after all, we'll just pay the money back over the term of the t-bills, right?

The economy might get jump-started if the demand that every company in the US says they need got created by people spending money? We might fix the bridges so no more of them fall down like in Minneapolis? We might be able to get the companies to hire some people to meet the demand? The economy might get fixed?

That all depends on how the money is used. If it's wasted, again, then it's not going to fix anything. A short term jolt that fixes nothing, helps create or bolster a long term industry, etc., does nothing. Fixing the bridges is not going to fix the economy. And, you're talking about a bridge that collapsed 4 years ago?

Just sayin'.

It's not just teabaggers who "won't go for it." It's anybody with half a brain. Teabaggers just happen to be right, by chance, on this one. Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

Sorry, I'm a lot more interested in the people who have whole brains. Not to mention the Nobel-prize-winning economists and professors of economics. Of course, you have to stop listening to the ones from the freshwater schools; you want the ones from schools on the coasts, not the idiots from Chicago who caused the problem in the first place and whose cronies are currently stopping anyone from doing anything about it so we don't elect the nigger again.

Paranoid conspiracy theorists -- yes, there are some cronies of some economists in Chicago who have such immense power that they are stopping "anyone from doing anything about it." That's so typical of your side - the fact that what this Administration did didn't work isn't something you can consider - there are powerful forces that overarch the President of the US and the Congress, which are affirmatively preventing those hardworking, honest folks from just doing what is right. Chicago economists, twirling mustaches, and scheming how best to destroy the country....

Let's here the story again about how $800,000,000,000 worth of stimulus was needed to ensure that unemployment doesn't go above 8%. Worked like a charm that time, so let's do it again.

No no - borrow more money. We're $14 trillion in debt, and the suggestion to improve the economy is just to borrow another trillion. Good one. Works every time.

MAXINE WATERS: ‘GANGSTER’ BANKS MUST MODIFY LOANS OR ‘TAX THEM OUT OF BUSINESS’

Another reasonable suggestion....

[Schneibster]

"I’m talking about a jobs program of a trillion dollars or more. We’ve got to put Americans to work. That’s the only way to revitalize this economy. When people work they earn money, they spend that money, and that’s what gets the economy up and going," Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA) told NBC's "Meet the Press." http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/ ... ogram.html

Are you laughing because you think she's wrong, or because the idiot teabaggers holding the country hostage will never vote for it?

Fair warning: I'm a member of the hippie caucus.

I'm laughing because we don't have $1 trillion to spend.

I guess you're new to the whole economics thing, huh?

No, why?

Because you don't appear to have read any.

Currently, return on these bonds is at historic lows- making this the ideal time to borrow. Maybe you missed that small detail.

I didn't, and your insipid sarcasm is noted.

You might want to check in just a tad bit deeper than the first layer of the epidermis. You might find out, if you actually thought about it, that the ability to issue Treasury Bonds is not a bottomless well of money, and that large sums of money, like, say, oh, a trillion dollars is not chickenfeed, and is not something that economy can necessarily handle.

It's not something that's going to affect the economy unless the dreaded bond vigilantes show up; and the current T-bond rate says the bond vigilantes are busy elsewhere, because the rate is low. Your argument is internally inconsistent; dismissed.

When you've actually read some economics, come back and we'll chat.

[Coito ergo sum]

Strange - you sound like someone who hasn't even taken a first year Econ class. You're great at spouting partisan talking points though. Go back to that website and get another quip....

It's not something that's going to affect the economy unless the dreaded bond vigilantes show up; and the current T-bond rate says the bond vigilantes are busy elsewhere, because the rate is low. Your argument is internally inconsistent; dismissed.

Nice how you skipped over the part of my post above where I explained to you how it will effect the economy. And, it had nothing to do with vigilantes. My argument is not internally inconsistent - the rate is low now, but issuing a trillion dollars in new t-bills will put upward pressure on bond rates. You may have been out sick that day, but somehow you missed it. And, if you're going skip whole swaths of my posts, then don't bother responding. Go back above and respond to the part where I explained to you, and I typed as slowly as I could and I used small words so you would be sure to understand, how the economy would be negatively effected.

When you've actually read some economics, come back and we'll chat.

Pssst.... you'll need to actually pick up an economics textbook. Reading articles from "truthout," Democratic Underground, Alternet, and "dailykos" doesn't constitute reading economics....

[Schneibster]

Strange - you sound like someone who hasn't even taken a first year Econ class.

I have a policy: when someone becomes obnoxious, I only respond until the first lie.

[Schneibster]

If anybody wants to read some actual economics by an actual professor of economics at Berkeley, try Brad DeLong's blog. The chart in the upper right hand corner is enough to show Coitus here hasn't got a fucking clue, either about what's wrong, or about what to do about it. Unfortunately, neither, to all appearances, does Obama, but he at least appears at long last to be getting one. I suspect ol' Coitus there never will, but I've been wrong before and I'll be wrong again.

[Coito ergo sum]

Strange - you sound like someone who hasn't even taken a first year Econ class.

I have a policy: when someone becomes obnoxious, I only respond until the first lie.

You know - you've been obnoxious since you started posting. And, unless you can demonstrate that I "lied" I suggest you keep that bullshit to yourself.

My policy: When someone comes at me behaving like a total tool, I see no need to be polite in return.

[Coito ergo sum]

If anybody wants to read some actual economics by an actual professor of economics at Berkeley, try Brad DeLong's blog. The chart in the upper right hand corner is enough to show Coitus here hasn't got a fucking clue, either about what's wrong, or about what to do about it. Unfortunately, neither, to all appearances, does Obama, but he at least appears at long last to be getting one. I suspect ol' Coitus there never will, but I've been wrong before and I'll be wrong again.

I would absolutely love to read your explanation of the civilian employment-population ratio chart, and how, exactly, that shows I don't have a clue. Feel free. I bet you won't, though.

Let me explain it to you though, and see if you can get why it doesn't support anything you've been saying. The chart shows the ratio of employed civilians to the total population. Right now, it's about 58% which is the lowest its been in about 31 years. So, if you'd like to explain how this chart dropping from about 63% in 2008 to 58% now, and still on a downward trend, shows I don't have clue, or that you have one, I'd be quit interested...

[Clinton Huxley]

"Here comes the other economic shoe dropping..." Coito, over the past three months you actually reported several hundred economic shoes dropping in 160 posts. How many more are there to drop until the economic apocalypse descends upon us

Obviously I'm not going to check if this has been posted before...



CES and Schneibster duking it out in the same thread...."We're gonna need a bigger forum"...

Carry on.

[Coito ergo sum]

LOL - the thread did turn into a more a general economic situation thread.

Maybe a moderator can rename it - "The Economy Thread" or something like that. That way we don't have to keep worrying about the shoes. :-)

[Schneibster]

Strange - you sound like someone who hasn't even taken a first year Econ class.

I have a policy: when someone becomes obnoxious, I only respond until the first lie.

You know - you've been obnoxious since you started posting. And, unless you can demonstrate that I "lied" I suggest you keep that bullshit to yourself.

My policy: When someone comes at me behaving like a total tool, I see no need to be polite in return.

I thought it was a fairly obvious statement, with fairly obvious implications.

Do you miss implications a lot?

[Schneibster]

If anybody wants to read some actual economics by an actual professor of economics at Berkeley, try Brad DeLong's blog. The chart in the upper right hand corner is enough to show Coitus here hasn't got a fucking clue, either about what's wrong, or about what to do about it. Unfortunately, neither, to all appearances, does Obama, but he at least appears at long last to be getting one. I suspect ol' Coitus there never will, but I've been wrong before and I'll be wrong again.

I would absolutely love to read your explanation of the civilian employment-population ratio chart, and how, exactly, that shows I don't have a clue. Feel free. I bet you won't, though.

Let me explain it to you though, and see if you can get why it doesn't support anything you've been saying. The chart shows the ratio of employed civilians to the total population. Right now, it's about 58% which is the lowest its been in about 31 years. So, if you'd like to explain how this chart dropping from about 63% in 2008 to 58% now, and still on a downward trend, shows I don't have clue, or that you have one, I'd be quit interested...

OK. You managed not to lie in this one (we'll overlook the rhetorical lie that you would absolutely love to read the explanation).

When things were OK, then they're fucked up, and you find that an important indicator of goodness like the percentage of people employed has dropped like that, it's a pretty strong indication of where the problem is coming from.

In this case the problem is demand.

If the government doesn't spend money when there's a demand problem, the demand problem won't go away.

You're whining about running up the debt. It doesn't matter right now if we run up the debt, because if we don't, we'll never get out of this, and the debt will keep going up no matter what we do.

Which is why I said you don't have a clue.

Which that graph shows.

And that's also why it's in the upper right hand corner of the economics professor's blog. In case you hadn't noticed.

You're a bright one, aren't you?

Next?

[Coito ergo sum]

Strange - you sound like someone who hasn't even taken a first year Econ class.

I have a policy: when someone becomes obnoxious, I only respond until the first lie.

You know - you've been obnoxious since you started posting. And, unless you can demonstrate that I "lied" I suggest you keep that bullshit to yourself.

My policy: When someone comes at me behaving like a total tool, I see no need to be polite in return.

I thought it was a fairly obvious statement, with fairly obvious implications.

Do you miss implications a lot?

I got your implication. You're not particularly subtle.

Don't worry, though. I realize that you're just one of those folks who are incapable of holding a civil conversation or discussion. Attack the person, that's your fallback argument.

[Schneibster]

I'm obnoxious when people lie and insult me, it's true.

Sue me.

ETA: Oh, and I forgot: when people try to change the subject by making it about me instead of about the subject of the thread. It's called gaming the system, and it's a common practice of people who don't know what they're talking about. I call them cranks.

[Coito ergo sum]

If anybody wants to read some actual economics by an actual professor of economics at Berkeley, try Brad DeLong's blog. The chart in the upper right hand corner is enough to show Coitus here hasn't got a fucking clue, either about what's wrong, or about what to do about it. Unfortunately, neither, to all appearances, does Obama, but he at least appears at long last to be getting one. I suspect ol' Coitus there never will, but I've been wrong before and I'll be wrong again.

I would absolutely love to read your explanation of the civilian employment-population ratio chart, and how, exactly, that shows I don't have a clue. Feel free. I bet you won't, though.

Let me explain it to you though, and see if you can get why it doesn't support anything you've been saying. The chart shows the ratio of employed civilians to the total population. Right now, it's about 58% which is the lowest its been in about 31 years. So, if you'd like to explain how this chart dropping from about 63% in 2008 to 58% now, and still on a downward trend, shows I don't have clue, or that you have one, I'd be quit interested...

OK. You managed not to lie in this one (we'll overlook the rhetorical lie that you would absolutely love to read the explanation).

I haven't lied at all, and your constant unsubstantiated allegations in that regard constitute personal attacks. I'm sick and tired of your nonsense. If you care to discuss matters in a civil manner, I will. But, your puerile, fatuous casuistry and your ad hominem attacks have worn their welcome.

When things were OK, then they're fucked up, and you find that an important indicator of goodness like the percentage of people employed has dropped like that, it's a pretty strong indication of where the problem is coming from.

You'll have to write in some semblance of a grammatically correct fashion. Perfection is not required, but for crying out loud, "When things were OK, then they're fucked up, and you find that an important indicator of goodness like the percentage of people employed has dropped like that, it's a pretty strong indication of where the problem is coming from?" Really? You typed that and thought it made some sense?

In this case the problem is demand.

If the government doesn't spend money when there's a demand problem, the demand problem won't go away.

Your belief is that demand is only created by the government spending money? The problem won't go away otherwise?

You're whining about running up the debt.

I haven't whined about it. Excessive debt is not a good thing.

It doesn't matter right now if we run up the debt, because if we don't, we'll never get out of this, and the debt will keep going up no matter what we do.

We most certainly can get out of this without running up the debt.

Moreover, the more debt a country holds, the less money it's able to put away in savings and reinvest in the nation's economy.This is especially a problem since the Baby Boomers are starting to retire in larger and larger numbers, and the Medicare/Social Security accounts will no longer be available as a source to pay for other things. Federal borrowing to pay off the deficit will inevitably lead to higher interest rates, affecting the ability of citizens to buy homes and take out loans, and of course limiting the ability of businesses and industry to access capital as well.

Which is why I said you don't have a clue.

You used that nonsense language to attack me personally, because you really have no knowledge of what you're talking about beyond the talking point. Now you're supposed to say "debt doesn't matter" because your political team thinks we need to spend, spend, spend, spend. You've not in the least demonstrated your position - you've just stated it - declared it to be true by fiat, and then claimed that if I don't agree, I'm "clueless," and I don't know anything about real economics. Well, your last couple of posts have demonstrated that while you pretend to some sort of expertise, you can barely type a coherent sentence and you resort to namecalling and various other tactics to belittle others instead of addressing the topic at hand.

Which that graph shows.

The graph shows nothing of the kind. It shows the ratio of the employed population to the population at large, and it shows very clearly that the large drop occurred in 2009, 10 and is continuing in 2011. The timing of the Stimulus plan in 2009 shows that $800 billion of Stimulus did nothing, or nothing much, to stimulate job growth. The lesson really is that flushing money down the toilet or merely injecting money anywhere into the economy doesn't ultimately help.

Real help would come from encouraging or helping to create a needed industry that produces something. That would create the needed demand. For example, if instead of placing yokes around the neck of the coal industry, if we encouraged that industry, we could take advantage of demand on the global level, and that industry would grow. Growth in that industry would translate into jobs in that industry.

Similarly, we could expand the nuclear industry, and build a few dozen power plants -- there is huge demand for energy, so that business would take off and jobs would follow as the industry grows.

Those are two examples, and there are many others.

Throwing money at some temporary project doesn't ultimately work. It didn't work in the Great Depression, where the unemployment level in 1939 was not much less than in 1930. In 1930, unemployment went from 3.2 to 8.7 percent, and in 1931 it rose to 15.9 percent. In 1932, it was 23%. With all the efforts for years and years to do exactly what you're doing - unemployment was 19% in 1938.

And that's also why it's in the upper right hand corner of the economics professor's blog. In case you hadn't noticed.

You're a bright one, aren't you?

Next?

You honestly think you've shown something? Look, genius, just repeating the same declaration over and over again won't make it any more persuasive. Your entire argument is: We need to spend trillions of borrowed government money - doesn't matter where or how - just throw it bags out to all comers - and that'll fix the economy. And, you think that having a public debt equal to the entire GDP of a country has no effect on the economy and is no big deal -not only that - you want to increase it to well over 100% of GDP.

I'll tell you, though, I really have responded too much to you. I am telling you now - stop it with the personal insults and the attacks. If you care to discuss these economic issues in a civil manner, then I will be glad to do so, but I'm certainly not going to listen to a childish capon clucking on with false accusations of lies and constant insults.