jump to last post 1-25 of 25 discussions (243 posts)

What should be done about the economic crisis in Europe and the U.S.?

  1. Ralph Deeds profile image70
    Ralph Deedsposted 3 years ago

    Economists Agree: Solutions Are Elusive
    By EDUARDO PORTER
    Published: April 23, 2013
       
    "Last week the International Monetary Fund hosted a conference of some of the world’s top macroeconomists to assess how the most intense crisis to have shaken the industrialized economies since the Great Depression has changed the profession’s collective understanding of how the world economy works."

    http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/24/busin … s&_r=0

  2. 0
    JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago

    Ooh, ooh, pick me!

    Let's create an environment where businesses aren't crushed by regulations, laws, and taxes... and, and, AND! assurances that they aren't going to face huge regulations, laws, and taxes the next time we change POTUS or control of Congress.

    Like your link said Ralph, the cat is scared to move. While it is scared to move, we introduce Obamacare, which makes it even more uncertain about how safe it is to come down. Maybe we should help it, instead of adding more uncertainty?

    1. Uninvited Writer profile image83
      Uninvited Writerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Yes, let's have more examples like the fertilizer plant in West Texas.

      1. 0
        JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Didn't say that.

  3. JohnfrmCleveland profile image82
    JohnfrmClevelandposted 3 years ago

    The first thing that should be done is to stop referring to the outstanding bonds of fiat currency economies as "debt," and acting like sovereign nations are broke.  When you can create your own currency out of thin air, then pay your obligations with that paper, that isn't "debt" in any real sense of the word.  Next, governments should apply that knowledge, and stop factoring debt into their budget decisions.  The true limit on government deficit spending is not debt, but inflation.  And it follows that government spending should increase, with the goal of 100% employment.

    The Eurozone is a different case - those countries that foolishly ceded monetary sovereignity to the European Central Bank are actually in debt, because they have to borrow euros - and pay interest - just to have currency to use.  Eurozone countries are more like American states in that respect - they cannot create currency, so they have to stick to an actual budget.  The euro should be abandoned ASAP.

    There.  Problem solved.

    1. innersmiff profile image79
      innersmiffposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      So wait, you're arguing not that these countries have not spent too much but have spent too little? I wonder how much spending we actually need considering the spending we've seen so far has been unprecedented. What would be an appropriate level, do you think?

      1. JohnfrmCleveland profile image82
        JohnfrmClevelandposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        What makes you think we need less government spending?
        An appropriate level of government spending depends on what they spend it on.  What I would shoot for is 100% employment, which would just mean giving the currently unemployed simple government jobs.  The cost would be small compared to the benefits.

        1. innersmiff profile image79
          innersmiffposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Government spending has done nothing but increase for the past 100 year or so, with no substantial economic  improvement. This is because the more government spends the more money is being taken away from the productive side of the economy.  The government can create tons of employment tomorrow, but would be taking productive capacity away from the private sector to do so. Just give everyone the job of digging holes and filling them back up again and you have full employment but no production and no growth. Moreover, the government cannot possibly create a productive job seeing as if was productive, the market would be doing it anyway.

          1. JohnfrmCleveland profile image82
            JohnfrmClevelandposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            You don't think our economy has advanced over the past 100 years?  Seriously?

            Also - putting the unemployed to work does not take productive capacity away from the private sector, because the private sector was not using that labor to begin with.  That's why we call them "unemployed."  Like you said (and I agree with this), if there was more money to be made by employing that unused labor, the private sector would already be doing it.  But they aren't.

            1. innersmiff profile image79
              innersmiffposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              In certain sectors, perhaps, but not widespread and no where near as fast as it was where the government largely kept their hands off the economy in the 19th century.

              But where does the government get the money to pay these people? By taxing, naturally taking productive capacity away from the economy. And you admit it: there is no productivity to be had out of this labour. That means we need to restore productive capacity to the market by reducing taxation and spending. To disagree with this is to commit cognitive dissonance.

              1. 85
                Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                +1

                You get it, and you say it well.  Nice.

              2. JohnfrmCleveland profile image82
                JohnfrmClevelandposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                The government gets the money to pay these people by creating new dollars.  We have a fiat currency, and it costs nothing to do so.

                Also, you don't WANT production out of these government jobs.  That doesn't mean they won't be useful (like picking up litter or fixing potholes), but "production" means putting a product on the shelves for consumption.  You don't increase production, then hope for new demand, because that doesn't work.  But the increased demand will naturally lead to an increase in production.  And if any more labor is needed by the private sector to meet that new demand, they should have no trouble enticing labor over from those minimum-wage government jobs.

                1. innersmiff profile image79
                  innersmiffposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Which then causes price inflation, destroying the consumer's purchasing power and mitigating any short-term benefit. Inflation is but a more sinister form of taxation.

                  Production is fixing potholes and picking up litter, it is the creation of product and service, i.e. the end that humanity strives to meet through jobs. If the resources were not there, for whatever reason, to sustain those jobs in the market they're not going to be there in government jobs without taking them from somewhere else, whether that be through taxation or inflation.

          2. 85
            Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            +1

            Absolutely!

            1. Ralph Deeds profile image70
              Ralph Deedsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              "Government spending has done nothing but increase for the past 100 year or so, with no substantial economic  improvement."

              There has been considerable economic improvement in the U.S. during the past 100 years.
              You guys really ought to do a Google search and to do a little checking before making such off the wall statements.
              http://visualizingeconomics.com/blog/20 … -1871-2009 Long Term Growth in GDP per Capita 1871-2009
              http://s4.hubimg.com/u/7933159_f248.jpg

              1. 0
                JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                You should try reading before you criticize others Ralph. It wasn't a statement about our economic growth, it was a statement about the effect of government spending on our growth.

                1. Ralph Deeds profile image70
                  Ralph Deedsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Perhaps that's what he meant to say, but it's not what he said. And if that's what he meant to say, it's no more than an unsupported libertarian assertion.

                  1. 0
                    JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    No, it's what he said. It was a single thought, otherwise it would have been separated.

                    And if you want to say government spending has helped, then it's up to you to prove that it has.

                2. innersmiff profile image79
                  innersmiffposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  That is what I meant but I didn't make that as clear as I should have. Obviously there has been some economic advancement, but "not widespread and no where near as fast as it was where the government largely kept their hands off the economy in the 19th century." as I said in a subsequent reply.

                  In support I present: 'Economic cycles before the Fed', a collection of articles on what the economy was like before the Fed enabled outrageous government spending:
                  http://www.libertyclassroom.com/panics/

                  1. JohnfrmCleveland profile image82
                    JohnfrmClevelandposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Kind of a crackpot source you're leaning on there.  If there is one thing Austrians aren't good at, it's coming up with actual evidence to support their theories.  I don't want to get into another endless debate with an Austrian disciple, but I will say two things:  one, no matter how much research you do, you cannot go back in time and hypothesize what things would have been like had such and such variables been different, and call that "evidence."  Two, it's pointless to try, because we have a system in place already, and it isn't going to change anytime soon.

              2. Marquis profile image59
                Marquisposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                lol

                Ralph made me laugh with that comment.

                1. SparklingJewel profile image67
                  SparklingJewelposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  .

          3. John Holden profile image59
            John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            What absolute twaddle!
            For productive read profitable and you will see how false your claim is.
            Local government in Manchester is creating a lot of needed and productive jobs - apprentices aren't very profitable short term though so business does not tend to offer them too often, unless they are heavily backed by government money.
            Government doesn't take money and then hide it away under its collective mattress, it spends it again and spends much in the private sector.
            Think of defence spending, most suppliers are in the private sector. Dole money, most of it is spent on local services. Health care, all those privately produced drugs and medical equipment.

            There is plenty that needs doing beyond digging holes and filling them back up again. Do you know how many of the Victorian reservoirs and sewage systems were built? No? They were funded by government to provide work for the unemployed.

            1. innersmiff profile image79
              innersmiffposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Productive is profitable. When you're making profit in the market, that is a sign the good or service you are providing is in demand and productive. If there isn't a way to make hiring everybody profitable, no amount of stimulus or wealth sharing is going to make it productive.

              Think of what happens when government steals money: the private sector has less purchasing power to spend in the economy. They would have otherwise been spending it on services, sewage systems, drugs etc. It makes it an odd policy from people that usually argue that the economy has not got enough "aggregate demand".

              Either way, by spending or inflating, government spending is simply shifting money around. Those jobs that are created by local government in Manchester necessarily take jobs from somewhere else. You cannot create something out of nothing.

              1. Ralph Deeds profile image70
                Ralph Deedsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                "Either way, by spending or inflating, government spending is simply shifting money around. Those jobs that are created by local government in Manchester necessarily take jobs from somewhere else. You cannot create something out of nothing."

                Not so when the economy is in recession. Unemployed workers and resources are put back to work on useful, needed jobs and projects. The equation is C (consumption)+I (investment)+ G (government expenditures)=GNP

                1. wilderness profile image97
                  wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  To some degree.  While government does provide some productive work (infrastructure, military, etc.) the large majority of expenditures produces nothing that anyone needs or wants.  Paperwork and new laws are not something people hang on their wall or eat.  It's not even good entertainment.

                  1. John Holden profile image59
                    John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Have you never considered how much government spends on paper?
                    All from private suppliers and manufacturers.

                  2. Ralph Deeds profile image70
                    Ralph Deedsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Government services are provided by virtue of votes by our elected federal, state and local representatives. The military and infrastructure are two of many useful services. Others include the courts, law enforcement, environmental protection, drug regulation, parks and recreation, not to mention public schools. Your view of the role of government is that of a radical libertarian.

                  3. innersmiff profile image79
                    innersmiffposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    I'd like you to give me some examples where the military is productive.

                2. innersmiff profile image79
                  innersmiffposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  In order to pay the workers you need to take it from already productive sources, necessarily taking purchasing power away from people and businesses, and therefore the ability to create jobs. If the productive capacity is not there, there can be no creation of jobs.

                  1. John Holden profile image59
                    John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    If the demand is not there then there can be no creation of jobs.
                    Get people into work by any means and increase the demand.

                  2. JohnfrmCleveland profile image82
                    JohnfrmClevelandposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    This is not even remotely true - it is a gross oversimplification, and only useful to illustrate the production/consumption dynamic at the econ 101 level (at a bad college, at that).  "Purchasing power" is not a barter-level thing in the real world.  You are suggesting a zero-sum game, where 100% of production is consumed by the producers, but in the real world, we have savings, population growth, increases in productivity, interest, and a host of other things that render your scenario obsolete. 

                    If those "productive sources" spent 100% of what they earned, the economy would be in better shape, but they don't.  They save quite a bit of it.  China, Japan, and Saudi Arabia, for instance, sock away hundreds of billions every year, and those dollars never get spent.  Where do they fit into your simplistic explanation?

                  3. Ralph Deeds profile image70
                    Ralph Deedsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Government expenditures provide additional demand and jobs. In a recession, the money comes from borrowing. This increases "G" in the equation resulting in a net increase in GNP,  demand and jobs.

              2. John Holden profile image59
                John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                In a recession markets that may normally be profitable and productive cease to be so and some suppliers will not weather that recession, reducing demand in other markets.
                Government stimulus can help companies to weather that recession and even raise the economy out of recession.

                Firstly, the government does not steal money but when it levies taxes that money all goes back into the economy, plus a bit extra. In a recession businesses rarely spend money on infrastructure and they cut back on the amount they spend on labour, look how a recession ramps up the unemployment figures.

                You don't get it do you? Those jobs created in Manchester do not take jobs from anywhere else. They exist because private companies don't have the confidence to create those jobs but backed by local government they do have the confidence to create them.
                What do you think will happen when the recession ends and the demand for skilled labour increases?
                If you had your way that pool of skilled labour would have shrunk, even disappeared completely, with government intervention that pool of skilled labour is kept up to size.

                1. innersmiff profile image79
                  innersmiffposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Do you think businesses cut back on labour just because they get the willies? For whatever reason, these businesses do not have the means to hire the workers, and they're not going to be able to until they are more productive, efficient and therefore making more money. You could just go ahead and give the business money, but you need to take it from somewhere else to do it, which only exacerbates the problem. Where does this 'extra' come from? Through counterfeiting? You can do it through inflation, thus destroying the public's purchasing power, but this is not a fix.

                  I think the only way to to get out of this recession any time soon is to stop the stimulus and money-printing to allow the economy to fix the fundamental problems that the misappropriation of resources caused in the first place (through the central-bank created housing bubble in the 2000s).

                  1. John Holden profile image59
                    John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    No. businesses cut back on labour because there isn't sufficient demand for their product or service.
                    However productive and efficient a workforce maybe if there is no demand for their product then there is no job for them.
                    You can use tax revenue to stimulate the market rather than using tax revenue to quash the market and saturate it with unemployed or under paid workers who do not create demand.

                  2. JohnfrmCleveland profile image82
                    JohnfrmClevelandposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    "Do you think businesses cut back on labour just because they get the willies? For whatever reason, these businesses do not have the means to hire the workers, and they're not going to be able to until they are more productive, efficient and therefore making more money."

                    Businesses cut back on labor for one reason only - because that labor is costing more than they are bringing in.  The usual reason is because demand is down, and they aren't selling as much as before.  But sometimes, it comes from increases in worker productivity - if fewer workers can produce the same amount of goods, businesses can increase their margin that way, too.  But no business on the face of the earth - including the Mises Institute, if they sold anything - cuts their labor force when demand is high and those workers are making the company money.

  4. AMFredenburg profile image79
    AMFredenburgposted 3 years ago

    Not sure what Europe should do; we should spend some money on repairing infrastructure and building a high-speed rail system; long-term, we need an economy that doesn't rise and fall with Wall Street. 

    We need an interest rate that encourages savings, which in turn will make money available to local economies and lessen the push to put money into the stock market.   

    We should expand Medicare so that individuals of any age and small businesses can buy into it. This infusion of cash would rescue Medicare and create the public option that should have been created in the first place; this will help drive down health care costs.

    We should change zoning laws and building codes in a way that would protect the environment and ensure housing safety while allowing the building and locating of tiny/small homes. This could allow homeowners to build without the need for a mortgage. In some instances, a relatively short-term loan, such as for five years, could be used to fund the tiny house and could treated as a simple-interest consumer loan rather than a mortgage loan.

    We need to take a look at the economy from the bottom up rather than the top down so that it works for everyone.

  5. Uninvited Writer profile image83
    Uninvited Writerposted 3 years ago
    1. 0
      JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Wow, it's like you are completely ignoring what I'm saying!

      Try reading it again, more slowly.

      1. John Holden profile image59
        John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        You said "Let's create an environment where businesses aren't crushed by regulations, laws, and taxes... and, and, AND! assurances that they aren't going to face huge regulations, laws, and taxes"

        It was precisely because businesses weren't "crushed" by regulation that caused the disaster at West and the building collapse in Bangladesh.

        1. 0
          JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Nope. There are regulations that are useful for protecting the free market and the freedoms of everyone. Then there are regulations that are not, and are only burdens.

          I didn't say get rid of all regulations, now did I?

          1. John Holden profile image59
            John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Regulations to protect the free market!!

            That isn't a free market then is it? It's a regulated market.

            1. 85
              Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              You're evading the point.

              1. 0
                JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Free markets require regulation just like a free country requires laws.

                The laws and regulations should exist solely to protect the freedoms of others. No more.

                1. 85
                  Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  +1

                  Yes.  Free markets need regulation too, just less of it.

                  1. Ralph Deeds profile image70
                    Ralph Deedsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Countries need regulations for a variety of valid reasons. Here are a few-

                    To keep the bankers from screwing their customers as in the case of no doc loans and toxic mortgages.
                    To try to prevent insider trading.
                    To prohibit false advertising.
                    To assure that drugs are safe and efficacious.
                    To protect the environment.
                    To prevent discrimination in employment.
                    To assure airline safety.
                    To prohibit Ponzi schemes
                    To try to assure save and healthful work places.
                    And so forth.

        2. 85
          Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Governments are inherently bureaucratic and inefficient.  Government regulation can be a good thing.  However, in general, government regulation is more problematic than free-market regulation.  Problems arise whether or not there is government oversight.  That's life.  The market is almost always more efficient than the government, so deregulated industries are usually more efficient. 

          John, before you say that I need to provide sources to prove this, I'll preemptively say that you need to provide sources to show this is wrong.  I'm still waiting for any source that says that socialism results in a smaller government.  Guess I'll have a long wait?

          1. John Holden profile image59
            John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            I'm actually capable of reading and understanding a post  without lots of backup to prove your point.
            I'll make the same point to you that I made to Jaxson - a market is not free if it is regulated, there is no such thing as free market regulation.

            I'm sorry you didn't find the links that I posted sufficient proof, how many would it take to prove to you that socialism isn't about big government?

            1. 85
              Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Socialism is about big government.  Your links are weak.

              1. John Holden profile image59
                John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                As you are so insistent then it is up to you to prove it.

                1. 85
                  Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Nope.  You never have provided sources that say that socialism is about smaller government.  Nice try.  You're the one who loves socialism.  If you wan't to prove it, prove it.  I'm not going to do your job for you.

                  1. John Holden profile image59
                    John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    But the thing is that I know socialism isn't about big government. I know this from many years of experience. There is no one (acceptable to you) document that states socialism isn't about big government. Therefore, you do your work and find an acceptable source that says socialism really is about big government.

                    While you are at it, find me a source that says all western large governments are purely the work of socialists, even big government in the US..

            2. 85
              Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Again, you're evading the point.

              It's about quality links that actually agree with what you are saying rather than quantity.  Again, where's your source that clearly shows that socialism results in smaller government?

              1. John Holden profile image59
                John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                OK, where's your source that clearly shows that socialism leads to big government?

                1. Marquis profile image59
                  Marquisposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  It does indeed. Socialism is a scab. The government is a sore. Without a sore, there is no scab.

                  1. John Holden profile image59
                    John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    But that is only ill-informed opinion, not fact.

          2. JohnfrmCleveland profile image82
            JohnfrmClevelandposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            The "free market" is only good for two things:  making some people money, and putting things on the shelves that people want to buy.  It does not employ everybody, it does not take care of the environment, it does not keep people in line, it does not build roads and bridges.  It certainly does not "self-regulate."  And as far as your belief in efficiency goes, the market is only efficient because of government regulations.  Otherwise, business trends toward monopolies and cartels.

            1. 85
              Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Everybody MUST be employed and kept in line?  I don't want that kind of government.  People make a country great, not a government.

              1. JohnfrmCleveland profile image82
                JohnfrmClevelandposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Unemployed people make a country a little less great, and lots of unemployed people make a country a lot less great.  EA, for a guy who demands a lot of links and proof, you offer up precious little evidence yourself.  All you are doing is beating the "government is bad" drum.

                1. 85
                  Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  It's a big drum. 

                  Yes, I know unemployed people make a country less great.  Look at America as an example of that.  I find it disturbing that your government would force people to work and keep them in line.  Those are your words.  That sounds like a scary world.

                  I favor a country that works towards allowing businesses to flourish; entrepreneurs produce jobs that are then available for people to better their lives.  I do not favor a government that forces people to work and keeps a close eye on them.

                  1. JohnfrmCleveland profile image82
                    JohnfrmClevelandposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    A guaranteed job does not force anyone to work.  If people don't want to work, they don't have to.  And "keeping people in line" just means enforcing laws, which the private sector does not do on its own.  You are being a bit paranoid here.

                2. Marquis profile image59
                  Marquisposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  More government can lead into more tyranny.

            2. Neil Sperling profile image89
              Neil Sperlingposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Agreed - "The "free market" is only good for two things:  making some people money, and putting things on the shelves that people want to buy.  It does not employ everybody, it does not take care of the environment, it does not keep people in line, it does not build roads and bridges.  It certainly does not "self-regulate."  And as far as your belief in efficiency goes, the market is only efficient because of government regulations.  Otherwise, business trends toward monopolies and cartels."\

              Until mankind progresses (consciously not economically) the world will remain in a mess. When 300 Billionaire families earned collectively more than 4.5 Billion of the worlds poor.... the injustice / imbalance is simply an example of how little mankind has progressed since the cave man days. We have the technology and the means to make earth a safe clean place to live for all, plus the technology and skills needed to begin to explore the universe.

              Until mankind progresses and learns to realize it is the love of life and the love of living that is truly important we are stuck. It is time mankind realizes that building character is more important than building things. it is time we built a new man from the inside out.

              All the talk and bantering between left and right thinking individuals is nothing more than a display of bull sh*t and proof that "we need progress in consciousness" not money and material gain.

              Mankind acts like they are still in kindergarten.  it is simply "wrong" that 300 billionaire families can continue to earn so much when people die of starvation. It is simply "wrong" BP can slither away from the disaster that STILL plagues the Gulf. It is simply wrong to believe a debate between left and right thinking will solve any of these problems.

              Mankind needs to go back to zero and start over.... or at least be willing to leave kindergarten and make a try at grade one!

          3. Ralph Deeds profile image70
            Ralph Deedsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Free market regulation is an oxymoron.

            1. 85
              Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Yeah, free markets have regulation too, because there is no such thing as a completetly free market.

            2. 85
              Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Name one completey free market.  You won't be able to do it, because even the markets that enjoy the most freedom have some regulations.  That's reality, not philosophy.

  6. paradigmsearch profile image90
    paradigmsearchposted 3 years ago

    A solution? I have none.

    A prediction? I have a lovely one.

    The corporations are going to keep doing what they are doing. The politicians are going to keep doing what they are doing. And sooner or later, it will all come crashing down. And there is not a darn thing that We The People can do about it...

    1. SparklingJewel profile image67
      SparklingJewelposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      ...except to use the system as it is to prepare for self sustaining ability for when it all does collapse

      ...only those that have prepared will survive and rebuild a better more intelligent and less ego, selfish, greedy society

      ...I for one don't want a total collapse, I prefer to visualize  a gradual transition to a better society, but sadly, the biggest greedy egos will use up the less in every manner at their disposal and ability to manipulate the money and labor from the lessor...its a lose-lose situation for all...we've seen it before, when will they all learn to do it differently...???sad

  7. Ralph Deeds profile image70
    Ralph Deedsposted 3 years ago

    "The 1 Percent's Solution" Krugman

    "Economic debates rarely end with a T.K.O. But the great policy debate of recent years between Keynesians, who advocate sustaining and, indeed, increasing government spending in a depression, and austerians, who demand immediate spending cuts, comes close — at least in the world of ideas. At this point, the austerian position has imploded; not only have its predictions about the real world failed completely, but the academic research invoked to support that position has turned out to be riddled with errors, omissions and dubious statistics...."

    http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/26/opini … n&_r=0

    "Debt, Growth and the Austerity Debate" Reinhart and Rogoff'

    "IN May 2010, we published an academic paper, “Growth in a Time of Debt.” Its main finding, drawing on data from 44 countries over 200 years, was that in both rich and developing countries, high levels of government debt — specifically, gross public debt equaling 90 percent or more of the nation’s annual economic output — was associated with notably lower rates of growth...."

    http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/26/opini … ef=opinion

  8. 85
    Education Answerposted 3 years ago

    There are socialists and liberals in this forum who constantly say Europe is the shining example for all.  Just look in some of the forums about healthcare for plenty of proof about that.  Maybe the European way isn't as great as some think it is.

    1. Silverspeeder profile image59
      Silverspeederposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      There are 24 million workers in the UK 5.5 million work for the government thus 18.5 million pay taxes to pay for the other 5.5 million so the higher the government workforce the higher the taxes for the real taxpayers.
      Basing economic growth on borrowing and government job creation has led us into the situation we are in now. In Greece for instance train conductors were earning around €40000 a year while the railways were losing €400million a year, this is the way governments work. Of you continue to increase debt you will be 1) leaving a large debt for you children and their children to pay off and 2) making the banks even richer as they are in the end the lenders.
      Each country should concentrate on what they produce or what resources that have instead of how much debt they can rack up for future generations to pay back.
      Bit simplistic I know but economists an politicians have tried the complex rediculiousness of borrowing from Peter to pay Peter back.

      1. 85
        Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        I agree with your statement about debt.  The POTUS made big claims about reducing our deficit when he was elected.  That hasn't happened.

        1. Josak profile image58
          Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Deficit of 2009 (last Bush budget): 1.413 Trillion, Deficit for 2013 Budget: 901 Billion. More than a half a trillion dollar reduction is obviously nothing happening...

          1. 85
            Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            10 trillion in debt 4.5 years ago. . .17 trillion now

            It took us over 200 years to build up to 10 trillion.  Obama spent another 7 trillion in four short years.  you're right, a lot did happen.  Tax and spend.  Borrow and spend.  Print and spend.  Spend, spend, spend!!!

            You keep spinning while the POTUS keeps spending.  This is an accurate stat.  It comes from the government.

            1. Josak profile image58
              Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              You said deficit, you know what a deficit is right? It's not debt.

              The deficit has been significantly reduced.

              1. 85
                Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Josak,

                Stop the arrogant, pompous, know-it-all rhetoric.  Enough!  Yes, I know what it is.  I also know when somebody is deflecting and when somebody manipulates data. 

                The deficit and the debt are linked.  They are not the same, but they are connected, and everybody knows that.  Do I have to literally walk you through everything, so I don’t get some kind of pretentious statement that assumes you know more than everybody?  Enough!

                1. Josak profile image58
                  Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  If you say deficit then expect to talk about the deficit, you said: "The POTUS made big claims about reducing our deficit when he was elected.  That hasn't happened."  but actually yes it has.

                  Then you changed the discussion because you were wrong to one about the debt.

                  Then you pretended to be offended to disguise the fact you were wrong.

                  Yes the debt has grown, the rate of growth has decreased significantly, by more than a third actually, which I believe is the biggest deficit reduction in one term in US history. Reducing the debt happens by reducing the deficit and that is exactly what Obama had done, unlike you know those awesome fiscal conservatives that created a huge deficit. In 2000 revenue was greater than expenditure, by the time they were done the deficit was 1.4 Trillion.

                2. Ralph Deeds profile image70
                  Ralph Deedsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  He cites facts and you come up with b.s. opinions.

                3. Marquis profile image59
                  Marquisposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  The problem with most atheists who are socialists is the FACT that they think they know everything. I also knew someone else just like Josak. Everything he thought he said was correct. He thought he knew everything. He even knew God didn't exist either.

                  This is why I don't like socialists that much. They think that they know everything when they are nothing more than idiots.

                  1. John Holden profile image59
                    John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Unlike you who is sure you know everything?

            2. Josak profile image58
              Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              No it really doesn't come from the government here is the treasury site:

              http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/repo … histo5.htm

              Deficit was just under 11 trillion when Obama took power it is now 16.

              1. 61
                Lie Detectorposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                By how much has he cut the deficit?

                1. Josak profile image58
                  Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  As noted above, half a trillion dollars.

                2. Ralph Deeds profile image70
                  Ralph Deedsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  It's a fact. Why don't you look it up yourself?

                  1. 61
                    Lie Detectorposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    I did, it wasn't a half a trillion.

              2. 85
                Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                This is double speak.  Who pays employees of the Treasury Department?  Taxpayers.  It is part of the government, which is reflected in their .gov site.  Wow.

                Our exact debt is 16,758,107,082,298.63 right now.  It is not 16 trillion and much closer to 17 trillion.  Again, you are wrong.

                The debt, when Obama took office was exactly 10,626,877,048,913.08.  The 16.7 trillion dollar debt is a staggering increase from this number.  Tax and spend.  Borrow and spend.  Print and spend.  It's the Obama way.

                http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/

                http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-575 … ok-office/

                1. Josak profile image58
                  Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  So wait your argument here is a conspiracy theory that the US treasury department is fudging figures for Obama... excellent. Conversation over.

                  1. 85
                    Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    NO.  I trust their numbers.  I don't trust your numbers.

            3. Ralph Deeds profile image70
              Ralph Deedsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Pure crap. Bush handed Obama with a deep recession which reduced tax receipts, two needless wars, a big tax cut for the rich and an unfunded Medicare drug plan written by pharmaceutical company lobbyists. Cutting spending is not the way to get out of a recession.
              The quality of this discussion sucks.

              1. Silverspeeder profile image59
                Silverspeederposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Where would you get the money from to spend?

                1. Ralph Deeds profile image70
                  Ralph Deedsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  The federal government has two sources--tax receipts and sale of U.S. government bonds.
                  Your country's great economist Maynard Keynes advocated increased government spending during a recession when there is insufficient demand from private consumption and investment to encourage economic growth. This is standard economic theory today. Unfortunately, economic illiteracy is rampant among European and American Tea Party politicians. (and among several participants in this forum)

                  1. Silverspeeder profile image59
                    Silverspeederposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    So either way the taxpayer bears the brunt of economic failure of professional economists and politicians.

              2. 85
                Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                I think the same of your statement.  The majority of the war costs were incurred under Bush.  That's a fact.  Obama needs to own the fact that the recovery is way too anemic.  He may not have started the recession.  Bush owns that.  He does own the anemic recovery.  Leadership is taking responsibility.  Time for leadership.  Spending your way into bankruptcy isn't the way to get out of a recession.  At best, it results in short-term economic recovery and eventual collapse.

              3. 61
                Lie Detectorposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                I'm not sure why you are complaining about Bush when Obama has spent more in half the time. His policies have not helped and in fact are detrimental, Obama has continued Bush policies and have put them in overdrive.

                1. Ralph Deeds profile image70
                  Ralph Deedsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  That's a very simplistic comment. The fact is Bush handed Obama a huge bucket of shxx and the Tea Party morons in Congress have done everything they could to sabotage Obama's efforts to deal with Bush's legacy.

                  1. 61
                    Lie Detectorposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    A simplistic answer is always best when it is the truth. Obama has had more than four years to solve the problem left to him and hasn't. Reagan was able to counteract carters mess in four years why Can't Obama? The answer is obvious but I doubt you will answer it.

      2. John Holden profile image59
        John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        So government employees pay no taxes in your world! Amazing.

        1. Silverspeeder profile image59
          Silverspeederposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Government workers do not add to the revenue pot however as individuals they pay tax on their earnings and anything else that is taxed that they buy.

          1. John Holden profile image59
            John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            And government workers are less likely to be low paid workers dependent on the state for enough money to pay their rent.

            1. Silverspeeder profile image59
              Silverspeederposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Well it does seem a little nuts when a taxpayer is paying towards someone's salary that is much much more than his for in some circumstances to do the same job.
              Here in the UK it has come near to breaking point with some government workers earning hundreds of thousands of pounds and retiring on huge pensions while those who pay towards them are in some cases left destitute by the decisions these people make.

              1. John Holden profile image59
                John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Very few government employees earn hundreds of thousands of pounds, most are on comparatively low wages. Those that they earn more than generally pay no work related taxes.

                1. Silverspeeder profile image59
                  Silverspeederposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Local government here is just as bad, our local council pays the unelected council CRO £180000 a year plus bonuses and pension contributions, his PA received £77000 plus bonuses and pension contributions. This council is already in £3 billion worth of debt and their only answer is to increase local taxes and reduce services.
                  Directly employed refuse collectors earn an average of £30000 and can retire after 30yrs service whilst contracted
                  refuse collectors earn £20000 and receive no pension entitlement.
                  Here in the UK it's a well know that working for the local or national government is like finding the goose that lays the golden egg.
                  .

  9. maxoxam41 profile image80
    maxoxam41posted 3 years ago

    I still don't understand why economists are the ones to save what they praised. Who advised governments of austere policies if not them? Why the main protagonists of the crisis are not gathered around the table? Why is it them and not us? They damaged enough the economies.

  10. Ralph Deeds profile image70
    Ralph Deedsposted 3 years ago

    Federal Cuts Are Concern in Modest First-Quarter Growth

    "...In the first quarter of this year, government spending fell at an annual rate of 8.4 percent, after a decrease of 14.8 percent in the fourth quarter of 2012 — with the cuts driven by sharp declines in military spending. Both declines happened largely before the bulk of Congress’s across-the-board spending cuts took place. The so-called sequester is scheduled to strip $85 billion out of federal spending before Oct. 1, cuts that will have secondary effects throughout the private sector. Furloughed federal workers, for example, will spend less money at local businesses....

    "The pace of economic activity may have already begun to slow, given recent disappointing reports about economic indicators in March. Hiring slowed sharply last month, for example, and orders for durable goods like aircraft and metals fell more than analysts had expected....

    "... Justin Wolfers, an economics professor at the University of Michigan, said the government’s fiscal policy was a drag on the economy. He suggested that the Fed might also not be doing enough to bolster employment, given that inflation rates are still below official targets.

    “The bigger picture is that we have a fledgling recovery which needs help but isn’t getting it,” he said. .."

    http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/27/busin … s&_r=0

  11. SparklingJewel profile image67
    SparklingJewelposted 3 years ago

    ...what is important to look at is that governments/corporations/private individuals have not used economic systems ethically while they have increased financially

  12. Ralph Deeds profile image70
    Ralph Deedsposted 3 years ago

    HEADING THE WRONG WAY--NYTimes Editorial 4-28-13
    "...Underneath it all is the fiscal drag from ill-advised and ill-timed austerity measures. With the expiration this year of the payroll tax break, personal income declined sharply last quarter, forcing consumers to draw on their savings to support their spending. That is unsustainable, presaging weaker consumption in the months to come and, with it, weaker overall growth....

    "...The real danger in the Fed’s efforts to revive the economy is not that its actions will cause inflation — of which there is no evidence — but that they will fail to revive the economy by any meaningful measure, denting investor confidence and, in the process, the stock market.

    "That is not to blame the Fed. For years, Congress and the Obama administration have been working at cross-purposes to the Fed, as strategies to cut the budget have taken priority over strategies to increase growth, jobs and pay. Republicans have insisted on austerity for ideological and political reasons...." 


    http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/28/opini … s&_r=0

    1. AMFredenburg profile image79
      AMFredenburgposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Check this out: "The Retirement Gamble," on PBS: talks about the astonishing fees that decimate people's 401 (k) plans: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline … nt-gamble/

      1. Ralph Deeds profile image70
        Ralph Deedsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Excellent information! Thanks!

  13. bydojo profile image83
    bydojoposted 3 years ago

    I can speak for my country, but I presume the situation is similar worldwide.

    1. cut down the social support. I have nothing against pensions and helping people who REALLY need help. But there are MANY people who could work and get wellfare. I can't understand why, but it happens. At least in my country, from around 18 million people we have 4 million entrepreneurs and people who are hired in the private sector and over 8 million people who are either working for the State or getting pensions and support. There have been many cases when people who are currently retired from health reasons are HEALTHY. but they bribed whoever they needed. Help the disabled, help the old people, but those who are still young and strong should work.

    2. cut down the taxes. As long as I am working as 3-4 other people combined and the State is taking most of my money (we have some insane taxes, the VTA is 24% etc.), it won't work properly. Many people are starting to 'hide' money and use offshore companies to keep some of their money. Have some normal taxes and everyone will pay, since it's easier than to make all other arrangements.

    With these 2 I think we could move on properly. All people should work for their money and not receive help unless they REALLY need it. Our medical system is down, the population is either poor or sick of paying all this garbage, the tax evasion is probably close to 70% or more.

    1. Ralph Deeds profile image70
      Ralph Deedsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Here's what Nobel Prize economist, Paul Krugman, had to say in this morning's paper.

      "... So what could we do to reduce unemployment? The answer is, this is a time for above-normal government spending, to sustain the economy until the private sector is willing to spend again. The crucial point is that under current conditions, the government is not, repeat not, in competition with the private sector. Government spending doesn’t divert resources away from private uses; it puts unemployed resources to work. Government borrowing doesn’t crowd out private investment; it mobilizes funds that would otherwise go unused.

      "Now, just to be clear, this is not a case for more government spending and larger budget deficits under all circumstances — and the claim that people like me always want bigger deficits is just false. For the economy isn’t always like this — in fact, situations like the one we’re in are fairly rare. By all means let’s try to reduce deficits and bring down government indebtedness once normal conditions return and the economy is no longer depressed. But right now we’re still dealing with the aftermath of a once-in-three-generations financial crisis. This is no time for austerity...."

      http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/29/opini … n&_r=0

      1. Silverspeeder profile image59
        Silverspeederposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Surely it's not the government who should be creating jobs, it should be the government who are creating the conditions for more employment.

        1. John Holden profile image59
          John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          If the private sector fails to produce more jobs then who else but the government is it up to?

          1. wilderness profile image97
            wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Depends on why the private sector failed.  Mostly it's due to the roadblocks that govt. sets up.  Well meaning roadblocks, to be sure, but nonetheless roadblocks.

            1. Josak profile image58
              Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Yet statistically speaking the less well regulated your economy is the higher your unemployment, not to mention that you have lower wages anyway thus reducing the value of being employed

              1. wilderness profile image97
                wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                My comment is reference to workplace and business regulations, not regulations for the economy as a whole.  Under that topic, there is no way I would believe that additional restrictions on workers will increase productive employment. 

                It might, and likely will, increase employment for useless paperwork and make work, but eventually the loss of per person productivity will hurt, and hurt badly.  Whether every company has the same thing to fight or just one.

            2. AMFredenburg profile image79
              AMFredenburgposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Which roadblocks specifically? Folks like to talk about too many regulations, but seldom are any specific regulations mentioned or the negative effects of those regulations discussed.

              1. wilderness profile image97
                wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Start with ridiculous ADA requirements, requirements that are necessary whether there is a handicapped person working or even could work there.

                Move on to reams and reams of paperwork that does nothing for the company or anyone else except the paper clip counters in Washington. 

                Finish it up with OSHA regulations that have gone far beyond worker safety to nothing more than providing income to expand the workload of inspectors.

                In between you will find more hundreds of stupid and deleterious regulations should you care to look.

                1. AMFredenburg profile image79
                  AMFredenburgposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Not seeing anything specific here. These are generalized statements, not specific regulations.

                2. Josak profile image58
                  Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  You are going to need to back those statements.

                  The reams of paperwork comment is just a generalized statement, not to mention that the federal paperwork burden has been reduced significantly under Obama.

                  And in a country with a pretty poor safety record where several expert studies have concluded that up to 75% of our truck drivers and pilots are made to work too many hours for safety. Where we still have around 5500 lives lost yearly in workplace accidents I would disagree that regulation on the matter is excessive.

                  Per capita Australia for example is more than four times safer in number of workplace fatalities even though it has a massive concentration on high danger industries like mining, fishing and trucking.

                  1. Ralph Deeds profile image70
                    Ralph Deedsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    I worked for General Motors, before and after OSHA, and OSHA brought about substantive safety improvements in plant facilities, practices and record keeping. Some of the requirements were on the Mickey Mouse side, but for the most part they made sense. Some of the most significant requirements had to do with exposures to toxic substances and fumes.
                    Noise exposure regulations were significant also.

                  2. wilderness profile image97
                    wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    In terms of man hours, how much time do you think it takes just to maintain data to file taxes with?  How about to fill out OSHA records?  100% non-productive work, but it has to be paid for.  I've done too much company paperwork designed to do nothing but inform government of what's going to think there isn't far too much.

                    Workplace fatality rate in the US is in line with that in the EU at around 3-4 per 100,000 workers.  In reality, the rate per manhour worked will be less as the typical work week is considerably longer in the US.  I can't say what Australia is - can you provide numbers to back up your claim that Australia is 1/4 that of either the EU or the US?

                    If you think US workplace accidents are far too high, consider that you are far safer (from accidents) to be working than not, I'd say our jobsites are pretty safe.

          2. 85
            Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            That's an argument for larger government in your system?  If the government has to create jobs, that's certainly larger government.

          3. Silverspeeder profile image59
            Silverspeederposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Take the UK for instance there are 2.7 million unemployed so how many worthless government jobs paid for by the already hard pressed taxpayer would they have to create before there would be an economic up turn?
            If you are talking about the government investing in infrastructure projects that will be taken up by private companies who will increase there workforce to complete the projects then I would be all for it.
            Projects for building new bridges, railways, roads, prisons, schools etc etc should always take president over creating jobs for 100000 penpushers and paperwork jockeys.

            1. Josak profile image58
              Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Which is still government producing more jobs, whether they are infrastructural or not, and I agree they should be.

            2. JohnfrmCleveland profile image82
              JohnfrmClevelandposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              More money in the hands of the otherwise unemployed means more demand that can be exercised.  There should be no argument about that.  Where people are mistaken is believing that this is all paid for with taxes, and therefore it is a zero-sum game.  In reality, much of this is paid for with deficit spending.  And when you have a fiat currency, like the U.S. and the U.K. do, this costs the government nothing.  (remember that the interest on bonds is also paid for with freely-created fiat currency.)

              1. Josak profile image58
                Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Remembering that EXCESSIVE use of that non value coefficient currency manipulation creates inflation.

                1. wilderness profile image97
                  wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  And remembering that whenever debt is never paid back the carrying charges on that borrowing will eventually be greater than any benefit received from borrowing.

                  As the US has to borrow simply to cover interest, let alone principle, we are already far beyond that point.

            3. John Holden profile image59
              John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              But this government is cutting the building of new roads and bridges, tramways and all sorts of stuff that would give the economy a boost.

  14. Neil Sperling profile image89
    Neil Sperlingposted 3 years ago

    Until mankind progresses (consciously not economically) the world will remain in a mess. When 300 Billionaire families earned collectively more than 4.5 Billion of the worlds poor (collectively).... the injustice / imbalance is simply an example of how little mankind has progressed since the cave man days. We have the technology and the means to make earth a safe clean place to live for all, plus the technology and skills needed to begin to explore the universe.

    Until mankind progresses and learns to realize it is the love of life and the love of living that is truly important we are stuck. It is time mankind realizes that building character is more important than building things. it is time we built a new man from the inside out.

    All the talk and bantering between left and right thinking individuals is nothing more than a display of bull sh*t and proof that "we need progress in consciousness" not money, political or material gain.

    Mankind acts like they are still in kindergarten.  it is simply  "WRONG"  that 300 billionaire families can continue to earn so much when people die of starvation. It is simply  "WRONG"  BP can slither away from the disaster that STILL plagues the Gulf.

    It is simply  "WRONG"  to believe a debate between left and right thinking will solve ANY of these problems.

    Mankind needs to go back to zero and start over.... or at least be willing to leave kindergarten and make a try at grade one!

    1. Marquis profile image59
      Marquisposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Right Wing thinking is better at solving problems. Left Wing helps create problems.

      1. JohnfrmCleveland profile image82
        JohnfrmClevelandposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Like the problems they solved by invading Iraq and Afghanistan?

        1. 85
          Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          "They" = the majority of Congress, both republican and democrat, and George Bush. . .It also included the majority of America and numerous foreign nations, . . .but apparently not you

          What would your solution have been, ask them to be nice?  More sanctions?  Ignoring them?  Telling them that sticks and stones may break your bones, but words will never hurt you?  Would you apologize?

          Liberals are all over Iraq and Afghanistan, yet they largely voted for these actions at the time.  Now, they blame republicans or say that Bush lied.  Well, Congress was getting the same intelligence.

          1. JohnfrmCleveland profile image82
            JohnfrmClevelandposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            The majority of Congress were duped into backing president Cheney on Iraq because they were lied to.  Colin Powell and his once-honorable reputation sat there and regurgitated false intel to the U.N. and the rest of the world to justify the invasion.  Most of the rest of the world, happily, saw through that.  Remember how we didn't have all those allies marching with us in Iraq?  And Bush's misguided policy of widespread payola in Afghanistan has worked out well, too.  And all because Reagan took a little-known militant named Osama Bin Laden and made him a star, just for being a thorn in the side of the U.S.S.R.  Awesome track record you guys are sporting there in the Middle East.

            If you bothered to look into it, Rumsfeld and Cheney marginalized the intel that didn't justify invading Iraq, and championed the little bit that did.  The biggest movers in the Bush administration were the ones fudging the intel, and they were the ones who led us into a long, fruitless war.  But at least we neutralized all those weapons of mass destruction, eh?

            1. 85
              Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Congress had the same intelligence.  Your statement is an excuse.  What's more, a lot of those democrats who voted for war still stand by their votes, so this is just an excuse.  Let's start with John Kerry and Tom Daschle standing by their vote for war.  I can find a lot more too.  So. . . .your argument is poor, because a lot of those democrats would still vote the same way today, with the benefit of a lot more intelligence.

              http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/08/09/kerry.iraq/

              http://www.democraticunderground.com/di … 102x479336

        2. Marquis profile image59
          Marquisposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Lyndon Baines Johnson help keep America in Vietnam. Mention that please. He was on the Left. Roosevelt made sure America was involved in WW2. As a matter of fact, America was illegally supporting England with goods and services. Roosevelt was a Democrat.

          So do not play that Bull with me. Not to mention the Democrats started the American Civil War. I have a long history of stuff on them.

          1. JohnfrmCleveland profile image82
            JohnfrmClevelandposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            I don't agree with our involvement in Vietman, either.  But if you are going to compare our involvement in WWII to our second go-around in Iraq, I'm going to have to (virtually) laugh in your face.  And the civil war?  Seriously?  My sides are splitting now. 

            The only thing that's not completely hilarious about your positions is that you are probably still allowed to vote.

            1. Marquis profile image59
              Marquisposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              I was just making a case there. You see Democrats are not immune from making huge blunders.

              Over 200,000 Americans lost their lives in WW2.. And very few of them were draft dodgers like the cowards (Bill Clinton ect...Left Wing hippies). You can laugh as hard as you like. At least during that time people knew a thing or two about responsibility unlike today. What does me having to vote have anything to do with anything? That is not even the point.

      2. Neil Sperling profile image89
        Neil Sperlingposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        My comment is neither right nor left - as far as I am concerned they both ultimately create the exact same problems.... time for progress in mankind means eliminate all the systems we have used to date to get man to where he is today.... same as when you leave grade school and enter middle school you throw away the flash cards and the building blocks.... All existing political and economic systems have had their purpose... key word "HAD".   We need something new. A resource based economy - a system that honors and builds character... and respects the earth we live on.

        Again - my comment has sweet F*#K all to do with left and right politics.

  15. boehmsarah559 profile image61
    boehmsarah559posted 3 years ago

    I just finished a class on Macroeconomics. It is surprising to see how many are losing jobs. I wrote a paper on this topic, about white collar jobs moving off shore. I think that majority of layoffs and terminations are due to the moving of white collar jobs off shore.

  16. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
    Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago

    - stop OMamma care and get the government out of the way.

  17. Marquis profile image59
    Marquisposted 3 years ago

    Socialism: no incentive, no value, no worth...these are the CORRECT words for socialism.

  18. Ralph Deeds profile image70
    Ralph Deedsposted 3 years ago

    'Deficit Hawk' CEOs Pocket Hundreds of Millions with Tax Loopholes
    Executives behind austerity group 'Fix the Debt' make millions off the backs of those whose benefits they want to slash
    - Lauren McCauley, staff writer

    As America's top CEO's push aggressively for austerity cutbacks in government programs that benefit ordinary citizens under the guise of the lobby group Fix the Debt, those same individuals are pocketing hundreds of millions in taxpayer subsidies, says a new report published Thursday.

    Is that fair? Between 2009 and 2011 UnitedHealth Group's CEO Stephen Hemsley was compensated a total of $199 million, $68 million of which was taxpayer subsidized. (Photo: Reuters) The study, Fix The Debt CEOs Enjoy Taxpayer Subsidized Pay—by the Institute for Policy Studies and the Campaign for America's Future—reveals that thanks to a tax loophole which allows corporations to deduct unlimited amounts off their income taxes for the expense of executive stock options and other so-called “performance-based” pay, Fix the Debt member firms have raked in over a billion dollars of taxpayer-funded bonuses.


    http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2013/05/02

    1. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
      Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      - But don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. We need a revolution in regulations.

  19. Ralph Deeds profile image70
    Ralph Deedsposted 3 years ago

    Business Investment Rebounds Even as Recovery Drags by Floyd Norris, NYTimes Chief Financial Writer:

    "THE economic recovery from the recession that officially ended in 2009 has been extremely disappointing for American consumers. But for business, it has been the best recovery in decades...."

    http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/04/busin … s&_r=0

  20. Ralph Deeds profile image70
    Ralph Deedsposted 3 years ago

    Lessons on Fiscal Policy Since the Recession Laura D'Andrea Tyson

    "In late 2008, the United States economy was caught in the midst of what proved to be its longest and deepest recession since the end of World War II. Frightened by steep and self-reinforcing declines in output and employment, both the Federal Reserve and the federal government responded quickly and boldly. The Federal Reserve dropped the federal funds rate to near zero, where it remains today, and began its controversial “quantitative easing” purchases of long-term government securities to contain long-term interest rates.
    Today’s Economist

    "Fueled by the 2009 federal stimulus package, discretionary fiscal policy was also expansionary in 2009-10, adding to growth during the first year of the recovery at roughly the same pace that fiscal policy had achieved during previous recoveries.

    'Then, in a sharp break with history, fiscal policy became a drag on growth in the second year of recovery, and since then the drag has intensified. What explains the premature and counterproductive turn toward fiscal austerity despite the high unemployment rate and the large gap between actual and potential output?..." More here:


    http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/ … /?src=recg

  21. Ralph Deeds profile image70
    Ralph Deedsposted 3 years ago

    "S&P 500 Tops 1,600 As Job Gains Top Forecast"

    "...In Europe, most countries have fallen into recession again. The Cypriot banking crisis earlier this year showed how sensitive traders still are to any flare-up of problems in Europe’s financial system. Last summer’s market swoon was set off by fears that Greece would have to leave the European Union.

    "But investors have been comforted by the European Central Bank’s insistence that it will provide a backstop if there are new problems. This week, the central bank dropped its benchmark interest rate to the lowest level ever in an effort to encourage economic growth.

    "Stock indexes across Europe are up this year, and rose Friday after the jobs report.

    "The moves by the European Central Bank provide a reminder of just how important central banks have been in the market’s recovery since the 2008 financial crisis. In the United States, the Federal Reserve gave reassurances this week that it was not planning to taper off its economic stimulus programs any time soon.

    "While the easy money has been a big help to banks, there are signs that the Fed policy is beginning to provide support for the real economy as well. The employment report on Friday showed that the size of the United States work force grew in April, while the number of long-term unemployed fell...."

    http://wap.nytimes.com/2013/05/04/busin … ivity.html

  22. Ralph Deeds profile image70
    Ralph Deedsposted 3 years ago

    5-5-13NYTimesMagazine "Boom, Bust or What?"

    Harvard's Clinton/Obama Economic Guru, Larry Summers, debates Columbia's Bush's Economic Adviser, Glenn Hubbard. Keynes vs. Hayek; Higher vs. lower taxes for the rich; Strengthen vs. Cut Social Security and Medicare; Long-term unemployment is the problem vs. high debt and deficits are the problem; more vs. less government regulation.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/05/magaz … f=magazine

  23. Ralph Deeds profile image70
    Ralph Deedsposted 3 years ago

    "The Chutzpah Caucus" Paul Krugman

    "At this point the economic case for austerity — for slashing government spending even in the face of a weak economy — has collapsed. Claims that spending cuts would actually boost employment by promoting confidence have fallen apart. Claims that there is some kind of red line of debt that countries dare not cross have turned out to rest on fuzzy and to some extent just plain erroneous math. Predictions of fiscal crisis keep not coming true; predictions of disaster from harsh austerity policies have proved all too accurate....

    "... So the whole notion of perma-stimulus is fantasy posing as hardheaded realism. Still, even if you don’t believe that stimulus is forever, Keynesian economics says not just that you should run deficits in bad times, but that you should pay down debt in good times. And it’s silly to imagine that this will happen, right?

    "Wrong. The key measure you want to look at is the ratio of debt to G.D.P., which measures the government’s fiscal position better than a simple dollar number. And if you look at United States history since World War II, you find that of the 10 presidents who preceded Barack Obama, seven left office with a debt ratio lower than when they came in. Who were the three exceptions? Ronald Reagan and the two George Bushes. So debt increases that didn’t arise either from war or from extraordinary financial crisis are entirely associated with hard-line conservative governments...."

    http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/06/opini … ef=opinion

  24. Neil Sperling profile image89
    Neil Sperlingposted 3 years ago

    Nick Hanauer -- Talks about his banned talk on TED Talks - Middle class create employment --
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aOsZSIcU9OM

    1. Ralph Deeds profile image70
      Ralph Deedsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Thanks, Neil. Hanauer is on the right track, in my opinion. Has Chris Anderson explained why he banned Hanauer's TED talk?

      1. Neil Sperling profile image89
        Neil Sperlingposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        I have not heard of any explanation.

  25. Ralph Deeds profile image70
    Ralph Deedsposted 3 years ago

    "How Austerity Kills" by David Stuckler and Sanjay Basu

    "Recessions aren't necessarily deadly. But harsh spending cuts are."

    http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/13/opini … wanted=all

 
working