6493 replies to this topic

[85suited]

LongLiveYorke, on Tuesday, August 31st, 2010, 2:09 AM, said:

Besides, even if the government were digging holes and filling them in, that can still have an economic benefit. I know you'll disagree and say that it's part of your fundamental theory, but you'd be wrong. For example, the biggest turn around in American history came as a result of America paying a lot of people to build big machines to dig holes and fill them back in and then destroying those machines.I mean, for a person who always says, "evidence matters," sometimes you choose to live in a world very different from the real one.

Evidence Matters

[mk]

ShakeZuma, on Monday, August 30th, 2010, 2:43 PM, said:

yorke: all you need to know is that mk is wrong about EVERYTHING(except for laura marling)

DIE

[LongLiveYorke]

akoff, on Tuesday, August 31st, 2010, 8:45 AM, said:

hmmm where to begin....somewhere in this thread you stated you didn't understand ecomomics, you have proved that with this comment.

85suited, on Tuesday, August 31st, 2010, 9:07 AM, said:

Evidence Matters

Oh, you're right, it turns out that World War II didn't play a major role in bringing us out of the great depression. After all, if it wasn't for the army, all those people could have been back at home being jobless and living in Hoovervilles. It's the broken Hitler Fallacy!In reality, if the hurts the economy to have potentially productive members of the country out of work. Their potential production is being wasted. This is a non-linear effect: the longer they are out of the job, the more difficult it is to get a job, the less motivated they become, the more unemployment they collect, and the more their family suffers. On the other hand, skimming across the top of the economy in future taxes is pretty linear: if I tax the rich an extra X % to pay for the jobs I create for the unemployed, the rich's productivity doesn't fall by a non-linear function of X. Therefore, I gain the difference, which is the extra productivity lost by the unemployed.This is what World War II did. The people who went to the army or into factories didn't in general come from other jobs, and therefore it didn't rob the economy of otherwise productive citizens. They were unemployed men and women (who didn't work at all previously). The government essentially paid for extra production without charging current production. If the government is in a position where it can buy the cost of production at the cost of only that production, it should do so.On the other hand, if the economy is in a stable equilibrium where the amount of people employed is at the right level based on consumption and need, then it hurts to artificially create jobs, because you're robbing potentially better production from an otherwise occupied sector. Simply citing "broken window fallacy" is an oversimplification.

[mk]

LongLiveYorke, on Tuesday, August 31st, 2010, 9:34 AM, said:

This is a non-linear effect......skimming across the top of the economy in future taxes is pretty linear: if I tax the rich an extra X % to pay for the jobs I create for the unemployed, the rich's productivity doesn't fall by a non-linear function of X.

WHOA WHOA WHOA with this linear/non-linear stuff. We like to keep the discussions strictly in tardland in this forum.

[Balloon guy]

LongLiveYorke, on Tuesday, August 31st, 2010, 7:34 AM, said:

Oh, you're right, it turns out that World War II didn't play a major role in bringing us out of the great depression. After all, if it wasn't for the army, all those people could have been back at home being jobless and living in Hoovervilles. It's the broken Hitler Fallacy!In reality, if the hurts the economy to have potentially productive members of the country out of work. Their potential production is being wasted. This is a non-linear effect: the longer they are out of the job, the more difficult it is to get a job, the less motivated they become, the more unemployment they collect, and the more their family suffers. On the other hand, skimming across the top of the economy in future taxes is pretty linear: if I tax the rich an extra X % to pay for the jobs I create for the unemployed, the rich's productivity doesn't fall by a non-linear function of X. Therefore, I gain the difference, which is the extra productivity lost by the unemployed.This is what World War II did. The people who went to the army or into factories didn't in general come from other jobs, and therefore it didn't rob the economy of otherwise productive citizens. They were unemployed men and women (who didn't work at all previously). The government essentially paid for extra production without charging current production. If the government is in a position where it can buy the cost of production at the cost of only that production, it should do so.On the other hand, if the economy is in a stable equilibrium where the amount of people employed is at the right level based on consumption and need, then it hurts to artificially create jobs, because you're robbing potentially better production from an otherwise occupied sector. Simply citing "broken window fallacy" is an oversimplification.

WWII brought women into the workforce, which deflated job values because they were willing to do the same job for 3/5th the pay. Then they refused to cook and clean when they got off work, forcing us to bring in illegal immigrants to do the housework for pennies on the dollar. As a result we have latchkey kids raised by PEE WEE Herman who are now taking their confused understanding of the world into the voting booth and giving us people like Obama, an influx of illegals, uppidity women and a weakening tax base.So if you are going to accuse AK and 85 of being shallow, YOU SIR better go a little deeper to the reality of the problem.

[Jeepster80125]

LongLiveYorke, on Tuesday, August 31st, 2010, 8:34 AM, said:

Oh, you're right, it turns out that World War II didn't play a major role in bringing us out of the great depression. After all, if it wasn't for the army, all those people could have been back at home being jobless and living in Hoovervilles. It's the broken Hitler Fallacy!In reality, if the hurts the economy to have potentially productive members of the country out of work. Their potential production is being wasted. This is a non-linear effect: the longer they are out of the job, the more difficult it is to get a job, the less motivated they become, the more unemployment they collect, and the more their family suffers. On the other hand, skimming across the top of the economy in future taxes is pretty linear: if I tax the rich an extra X % to pay for the jobs I create for the unemployed, the rich's productivity doesn't fall by a non-linear function of X. Therefore, I gain the difference, which is the extra productivity lost by the unemployed.This is what World War II did. The people who went to the army or into factories didn't in general come from other jobs, and therefore it didn't rob the economy of otherwise productive citizens. They were unemployed men and women (who didn't work at all previously). The government essentially paid for extra production without charging current production. If the government is in a position where it can buy the cost of production at the cost of only that production, it should do so.On the other hand, if the economy is in a stable equilibrium where the amount of people employed is at the right level based on consumption and need, then it hurts to artificially create jobs, because you're robbing potentially better production from an otherwise occupied sector. Simply citing "broken window fallacy" is an oversimplification.

In your opinion, did cash4clunkers have the same effect as the stimulus? Obamacare?

[LongLiveYorke]

Jeepster80125, on Tuesday, August 31st, 2010, 12:03 PM, said:

In your opinion, did cash4clunkers have the same effect as the stimulus? Obamacare?

Cash for Clunkers was an example of "Increase now, sacrifice later." It artificially created an increased market now with the effect of reducing car purchases after the program ends. It's different than what I said above about the stimulus.If one million American cars suddenly and all at once broke down and their engines went on fire, cash for clunkers would be a very good deal: it would help America get back to it's automobile ownership equilibrium. There would be a void of cars and people would have a need to get around. While that void would naturally restore itself, it would do so faster if the government gave incentives. And since owning cars helps the GDP by allowing for transport to jobs and in other obvious ways, it would be a net benefit.But that was not the case. We were in essence at auto equilibrium throughout the recession, so cash for clunkers was essentially like hitting a spring hard to the right and then having it spring back hard to the left. It's oscillatory motion.

[Balloon guy]

LongLiveYorke, on Tuesday, August 31st, 2010, 9:50 AM, said:

Cash for Clunkers was an example of "Increase now, sacrifice later." It artificially created an increased market now with the effect of reducing car purchases after the program ends. It's different than what I said above about the stimulus.If one million American cars suddenly and all at once broke down and their engines went on fire, cash for clunkers would be a very good deal: it would help America get back to it's automobile ownership equilibrium. There would be a void of cars and people would have a need to get around. While that void would naturally restore itself, it would do so faster if the government gave incentives. And since owning cars helps the GDP by allowing for transport to jobs and in other obvious ways, it would be a net benefit.But that was not the case. We were in essence at auto equilibrium throughout the recession, so cash for clunkers was essentially like hitting a spring hard to the right and then having it spring back hard to the left. It's oscillatory motion.

End of the day, cash for clunkers was just a way to waste money. The government ended up spending $3 billion to get people more in debt, causing used cars to come off the market and raising the prices on used cars. So the poor got shafted, the middle class got more in debt and the rich got subsidies.

[strategy]

Balloon guy, on Tuesday, August 31st, 2010, 12:34 PM, said:

End of the day, cash for clunkers was just a way to waste money. The government ended up spending $3 billion to get people more in debt, causing used cars to come off the market and raising the prices on used cars. So the poor got shafted, the middle class got more in debt and the rich got subsidies.

let's not forget that it also momentarily made the government's investment in/loans to automakers look better.

[Balloon guy]

strategy, on Tuesday, August 31st, 2010, 11:14 AM, said:

let's not forget that it also momentarily made the government's investment in/loans to automakers look better.

There is that. If America was a dude trying to pick up a chick in a bar, for 1 month, we had hair on our chest and a gold chain with our astrological sign pendant hanging cool.

[strategy]

Balloon guy, on Tuesday, August 31st, 2010, 1:22 PM, said:

There is that. If America was a dude trying to pick up a chick in a bar, for 1 month, we had hair on our chest and a gold chain with our astrological sign pendant hanging cool.

nevermind that foreign automakers were the biggest beneficiaries of increased salesoh, and the struggling satellite radio industry got a boost as well!stimulus and car sales: they're connected, and they feed back to eachother

[Balloon guy]

strategy, on Tuesday, August 31st, 2010, 11:30 AM, said:

nevermind that foreign automakers were the biggest beneficiaries of increased salesoh, and the struggling satellite radio industry got a boost as well!stimulus and car sales: they're connected, and they feed back to eachother

I owned some SIRI stock a while ago.What a dog.

[strategy]

Balloon guy, on Tuesday, August 31st, 2010, 1:44 PM, said:

I owned some SIRI stock a while ago.What a dog.

up almost 42% in the last year!

[Balloon guy]

strategy, on Tuesday, August 31st, 2010, 11:49 AM, said:

up almost 42% in the last year!

Then it's only about 400% growth points away from the price I owned it in 07

[CaneBrain]

thought this was interesting given our recent discussions; bonus it includes nutball Michelle Bachman!http://politicaltick...on/#more-120130deep fried bacon???

[Balloon guy]

CaneBrain, on Tuesday, August 31st, 2010, 2:15 PM, said:

thought this was interesting given our recent discussions; bonus it includes nutball Michelle Bachman!http://politicaltick...on/#more-120130deep fried bacon???

Last time I was at the Minnesota State Fair, I tried the chocolate covered bacon.Surprisingly good in small doses.also saw the silly Al Franken for Senate booths and people staffing it who were all a bunch of nancy boys.

[JoeyJoJo]

Balloon guy, on Tuesday, August 31st, 2010, 2:23 PM, said:

Last time I was at the Minnesota State Fair, I tried the chocolate covered bacon.Surprisingly good in small doses.

Next time, bacon cupcakes:

[CaneBrain]

just.....wow.

[Balloon guy]

Pretty much impossible for anything with bacon to taste bad.Bacon is the perfect food.

[JoeyJoJo]