0 members (),
13
guests, and
0
robots. |
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
Forums59
Topics17,128
Posts314,547
Members6,305
|
Most Online294 Dec 6th, 2017
|
|
There are no members with birthdays on this day. |
|
|
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 12,581
Pooh-Bah
|
Pooh-Bah
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 12,581 |
Actually, what is funny - not "funny ha-ha", but "funny, yes, I'm laughing at you" - is that you took rporter's request for an equation literally. I guess your sarcasm detector is either malfunctioning or non-existent. There I go again, forgetting to put on the super-duper decoder ring, Chuck.;-) Yours, Issodhos
"When all has been said that can be said, and all has been done that can be done, there will be poetry";-) -- Issodhos
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 12,581
Pooh-Bah
|
Pooh-Bah
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 12,581 |
in your previous post you wrote that no one knows what causes economies to contract and expand, not that no one can predict them interesting correct ... i must be stupid BUT ... if i know the causes then i should be able to describe the context for such events and should therefore be able to write an appropriate equation could you have applied the thinking part of your brain and not the hatrack part you too could have deduced that one should imply the other the fact that you haven't enlightened me with an economic model which predicts economic changes suggests to me you have nothing or ... so here goes again ... with your apparently infinite knowledge of economics you do know what causes economic changes and you can predict those changes ... so shoot Not my shot to take, rporter314. I am not one of those who has been pontificating on economics in this thread -- or I should say, pontificating on economic policy -- and from a biased party perspective, as well. And again, the statement you made that I replied to (or rather, had a good chuckle over) was, "...no one knows what makes the economy contract and expand.", so why now demand that I provide you with a predictive economic model? I am somewhat curious though. Are you saying that intelligent people did not know that a bust was coming (contraction, if you prefer) or are you saying they failed to specify which day of which month of which year it would happen?:-) Yours, Issodhos
"When all has been said that can be said, and all has been done that can be done, there will be poetry";-) -- Issodhos
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 8,085 Likes: 134
veteran
|
veteran
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 8,085 Likes: 134 |
I am not one of those who has been pontificating on economics in this thread -- or I should say, pontificating on economic policy -- and from a biased party if by pontificating you mean have i pointed out some of the nonsensical statements regarding the current debt crisis ... well you got me i don;t recollect advocating any particular strategy for mitigating the problem except a glancing reference to a plan i have, so to say my plan is from a biased party well if you mean the anti-ignorance party then you got me again you will also note i have not advertised nor promoted any particular economics school of thought. my fundamental guiding principle is from the Constitution i.e. government will provide for the general welfare, and part of that welfare is to mitigate economic contractions. How it is done will depend on instantaneous circumstances so it may incorporate conservative as well as liberal economic principles. The stim was exactly that. Conservatives don;t want to see it but there was $690 billion in tax cuts/incentives in that bill and a paltry $200 billion in projects. so why now demand that I provide you with a predictive economic model? weeeeelllll ... your chittering suggested to me you are privvy to a singular economic model of which i am ignorant and which confutes my statement. I therefore asked to view it. If it was as, you could have advertised, then I would have retracted my statement buuuuttt you didn't offer a model instead you preferred to continue with some inane crapola. There are several possibilities when one makes a statement ... you could have ignored it as uninteresting, you could have agreed with it, you could have disagreed with it but didn't know how to respond, etc or you could respond in disagreement and when asked for some substantive evidence you could have produced it or if there was no evidence you could have said gee i dont have any evidence but still believe it etc or simply said i retract what i said, i just dont have anything. yeah well whatever [proverbial cliche] Are you saying that intelligent people did not know that a bust was coming (contraction, if you prefer) or are you saying they failed to specify which day of which month of which year it would happen LOL really did you ask that ... yeah i want the very second no millisecond no no the nanosecond let's see i know a psychic who predicted ... o wait a sec you said intelligent people (guess that leaves out a whole boatload of folks) ... perhaps you ... did you predict the contraction? using turtle shells or some economic model you won't let me see look i am assuming (yeah yeah) you realize that in the realm of intelligent people the thoughts and ideas for any one particular theory be it physics mathematics or economics that there are people spread over a spectrum and when they are in agreement the curve describing agreement becomes very narrow with some outliers. Thus there will always be some people who are not in agreement (the contrarians) with any theory. So yes there was at least one person who vaguely predicted at some time the impending collapse of the economy based on an economic "tell" akin to psychic analysis i.e. he threw turtle shells, counted howling wolves, or whatever technical analytical tool he thought was better at predictive economics than those currently used by the majority of economists. the short answer is yes there was at least one but the majority did not see it coming until it was too late. To get back to your interest in exact timing, I suspect a reasonable level of granularity would be 1-2 years, however, over the years I have become convinced that "the economy" is an organic entity which continuously evolves, so that the economic principles which described it last year may not be applicable this year. So my level of confidence may be too optimistic, so perhaps it should be closer to the event. Now if that is the case then perhaps a better description would be an accumulation of variables which at some point in time explode without warning, which would be one idea to prove my original statement that no one is predicting economic variation. But, since at least one person can divine the future ...
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 8,085 Likes: 134
veteran
|
veteran
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 8,085 Likes: 134 |
Iss ... perhaps you will offer an answer to this (gee actually related to thread)
as an example (based on 2010 budget), there is $175 billion available per month while the budget calls for $283 billion per month so $108 billion will not be spent
SS = $58B/m Medicare = $66B/m defense = $57B/m interest = $16B/m subtotal = $197B/m
as can be seen there is no money for the government to function i.e. no one in Congress would have any money to pay staff or even get their own paycheck, but that is minor compared to the shutdown of essential services the government provides ...
can you offer your critique on what would be paid??? (i am using the 2010 numbers since they were the available numbers ... there is no loss in generality since the current numbers would be about the same)
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 18,003 Likes: 191
Moderator Carpal Tunnel
|
Moderator Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 18,003 Likes: 191 |
rporter, again, you are seeking substance. There isn't a Libertarian response to this issue because a Libertarian would expect anyone to honor an agreement, which pretty much mandates Congressional action, because the Executive cannot unilaterally change the terms of an agreement already entered into. But, Congress is not acting. The other problem is that Congress has already made promises and is therefore obliged to keep them, from a Libertarian viewpoint (except those quasi-libertarians who don't see a problem with the government reneging on promises they shouldn't have made, and/or who don't think that the government should exist). So, Congress can only cut from areas where they haven't made promises (i.e., discretionary spending), or for future requirements. But, that doesn't fix the fact that there is nowhere to cut that doesn't result in a default right now.
The only real answer is to borrow now, cut later - really much later, but that is another discussion point. Unfortunately, that is not the extortion point du jour.
A well reasoned argument is like a diamond: impervious to corruption and crystal clear - and infinitely rarer.
Here, as elsewhere, people are outraged at what feels like a rigged game -- an economy that won't respond, a democracy that won't listen, and a financial sector that holds all the cards. - Robert Reich
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 8,085 Likes: 134
veteran
|
veteran
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 8,085 Likes: 134 |
i have to agree that borrowing now to cover the shortfall and get control later. It is far more important to stabilize the economy than to undermine it at this time.
tea people apparently only think in the instantaneous and are unaware of a 50 year plan ... ahh ... i ain;t gonna solve it for them and besides the tea people want their lollipop now
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 18,003 Likes: 191
Moderator Carpal Tunnel
|
Moderator Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 18,003 Likes: 191 |
Five Reasons the House GOP Is to Blame 1) The debt-ceiling showdown represents hostage-taking, plain and simple. This is a "crisis" that need never have happened, regardless of which party controlled the White House.
2) The House GOP position fails the test of basic knowledge.
3) It fails the test of basic logic. Or perhaps basic knowledge part #2. If you look at the numbers, like the chart after the jump, you can see that budget-balancing involves a theshold choice. You can be for preserving tax cuts in toto, or you can be for cutting the deficit. But because the tax cuts have played such a major role in creating the deficit, if you have any regard for math or logic you really can't be for both. But most House Republicans are.
4) It displays a lack of tragic imagination. Many on the right have talked themselves into the view that it would be no big deal for the U.S. to go into technical default for a while.
5) It has turned into zealotry, by which I mean utter disregard for the practical consequences of acts. A Republican demand for $16 million in cuts from the FAA budget (plus some anti-union provisions) has led to an FAA shutdown that has in turn, as the NY Times reports, led to a $25 million per day loss in fees the airlines paid to the FAA.
A well reasoned argument is like a diamond: impervious to corruption and crystal clear - and infinitely rarer.
Here, as elsewhere, people are outraged at what feels like a rigged game -- an economy that won't respond, a democracy that won't listen, and a financial sector that holds all the cards. - Robert Reich
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 5,028 Likes: 98
old hand
|
old hand
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 5,028 Likes: 98 |
I have repeatably stated that this whole thing, ostensibly all about the national debt actually has NOTHING to do with the debt. This should, by now, be glaringly apparent. The FAA deal alone is costing more, per week, than the supposed cuts. Its also generally agreed that the coming increase in interest rates, due to this 'debt' stuff, are going to seriously increase the debt yet again. On the other hand its also agreed that the house Republicans can no longer depend on their own caucus to vote for ANYTHING to stop the default (they do have hope, however). The simple fact is that a minority of the house Republicans have taken over and they WANT a default as that will force the government to lay even more folks off. These people do not care about the debt, unemployment or anything else, other than cutting the government to the bone.
When this is all over the Republicans are going to OWN any negative results of their own actions. I suspect those who have been most vocal will be the ones most likely to be replaced, IF the Dems can get their act together, stop squabbling, and start educating the public instead of letting everything slide in the hopes that the Republicans become their very best buddies. My own hope is that we can actually survive the coming economic mess (unless they can actually raise the debt and start really lowering the debt).
Then, again, perhaps the Right is right and not raising the debt will have no negative results, everything will be dandy, unemployment will melt away, taxes will forever remain low, and the entire congress will, every morning, join hands and sing Kumbaya and proceed to pass laws actually regulating the financial monsters, stopping the tax rewards for moving jobs offshore, make sure that them that put up political ads also put up their own names on their ads, stop the war on drugs and, instead, start regulating and taxing said drugs, get rid of the TSA, completely overhaul the tax system whilst adding a constitutional amendment which would state taxes are for paying the bills and cannot be futzed with to socially engineer, help anybody, etc., shut down a minimum of 500 of our over 740 foreign bases, privatize FAA airport operations, get us the hell out of Afghanistan and Iraq, actually fix our infrastructure, and that would be for starters. (how was that for an alternate reality?)
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 9,740 Likes: 1
veteran
|
veteran
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 9,740 Likes: 1 |
"The basic tool for the manipulation of reality is the manipulation of words. If you can control the meaning of words, you can control the people who must use the words." (Philip K.Dick)
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 9,740 Likes: 1
veteran
|
veteran
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 9,740 Likes: 1 |
"The basic tool for the manipulation of reality is the manipulation of words. If you can control the meaning of words, you can control the people who must use the words." (Philip K.Dick)
|
|
|
|
|