/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.3678444]

>government does new deal like stimulus package, directly paying for 10,000,000 60K jobs, mainly infrastructure and teaching
>unemployment rate drops to 6%
>reccession ends
>government slowly eases of it over 2-6 years
>total cost: at most 3 trillion
>to play for it, end wars and pull back all overseas troops (except the ones in japan), increase tax on ultra rich to 1945 levels

why didn't we do this?

[Anonymous No.3678472]

Because the plutocracy doesn't want it. That's all.

[Anonymous No.3678485]

It's waste of money that could be going towards Shaynanah's 8 kids along with bombing mud people for campaign platforms that cater to the lowest common denominator of the American Public.

That's why and that the banks would lose out on profits with a lessened American debt.

[Anonymous No.3678488]

>>3678472

This and many people voting against it because they dream that one day they might be the rich ones and nobody likes high taxes.

People are a bunch of lunatic fools.

[Anonymous No.3678494]

>>3678444
>why didn't we do this?
take a wild guess.

[Anonymous No.3678515]

It would upset the status quo of spending money on corporate welfare, subsidizing the military industrial complex with wars and wasteful defense programs, and would take money from the ultra rich who spend the most trying to lobby and control the government.

So basically this >>3678472

[Anonymous No.3678519]

You do understand that corporate profits are currently at all-time record highs, right?

Think about that for a second.

Think about it for more than a second.

What the fuck makes you think corporations would want what you described if the current situation is making them bank?

And guess who controls legislation in Congress. The super rich. Through intermediaries like Fox News and US Chamber of Congress and the United States Supreme Court, etc.

Welcome to the real world, OP.

[Anonymous No.3678523]

These reasons aren't wrong, but there's also the concern that we went and toppled two governments in a region whose stability could be charitably compared to nitroglycerin. The second we leave the governments we set up are going to collapse and then even LESS stable governments are gonna take over, except now they're going to hate us even more. This is the reason that rational people don't want to leave, but it's kind of stupid anyway, since the chances of it improving in time are virtually zero short of us just fucking taking them as colonies and setting up governments with the full force of the US military at their disposal to scare people. Though even that would probably fail.

[Anonymous No.3678527]

>>3678519
>*US Chamber of Commerce


My bad.

[Liberty !!nQrIRh+JHbs No.3678589]

>>3678444

There is no demand for those jobs. And government cannot create fake demand.

[Anonymous No.3678593]

>>3678488

That too.

Iirc, according to the Citibank plutocracy memo, the poor and middle classes smartening up about this is something they live in fear of.

[Liberty !!nQrIRh+JHbs No.3678597]

>>3678488

> people are lunatics because they want to keep the full product of their labor

> mfw

[Anonymous No.3678607]

>>3678597
Then they should move to Somalia, and pay for everything they need out of their own earnings. Have fun paying for your own personal militia.

[Anonymous No.3678617]

>>3678589
>no demand for infrastructure jobs
>no demand for teachers

go to hell

[Anonymous No.3678622]

>>3678589
>government cannot create fake demand

I think you'll find it can.

[Anonymous No.3678635]

>>3678622
It doesn't need to in the face of all the real demand.

[Liberty !!nQrIRh+JHbs No.3678647]

>>3678607

> move to a former communist country with multiple states that all steal your labor

wut

>>3678617

There are tons of teachers out of work. There are tons of construction out of work. No. Demand.

>>3678622

Nope. See the 30's.

[pascal !n5Z3VuZapw No.3678648]

We need a land bridge to england. That should keep 10 million people employed for 5 years.
And srimulate african dirt farmer economy

[Anonymous No.3678657]

>>3678648

[Anonymous No.3678667]

>>3678648
>We need a land bridge to england

What, from America or Europe? Because the Eurotunnel already performs the second function.

Why would you want to come to England anyway? It sucks here, and most of us can't wait to leave.

[pascal !n5Z3VuZapw No.3678686]

>>3678667
From usa. I want to take a train to the netherlands, flying is too expensive

[Anonymous No.3678689]

>>3678647

Alright, you are either trolling or really that dense and fixated in your black and white world-view.

[resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e No.3678701]

Well does society really need more teaching jobs? Or infrastructure? Im not saying it doesnt, but you cant just say "Oh well buy infrastructure!" Without a case that there is some lack of infrastructure the public cant provide itself.

I personally dont feel like there arent enough teachers. Teachers at the moment dont get paid very much, think about what you would be doing if you just paid some extra people to stand around being teachers.

3 trillion dollars is about 1.5 years of revenue for the US government. If you just cut the military budget (which is about 20% of the budget I think) and used that money to pay for your stimulus it would take 15 years to pay off it off. And you cant just "increase taxes on the rich." Im not 100% positive, but Ive read about legitimate data suggests historically government revenue from income tax hasnt deviated over time despite our greatly changing income tax rates.

And what are you going to do? Pay these teachers and other new jobs forever? 3 trillion dollars is only enough to pay for ~5 years of $60,000k salary for 10 million jobs. Are you just going to fire them at the end?

I think its a bad idea OP.

[Liberty !!nQrIRh+JHbs No.3678702]

>>3678689

> black and white
> the gubbmint is jesus, he will save us
> anyone who has a different opinion will burn in jail

lolkay

[Liberty !!nQrIRh+JHbs No.3678719]

>>3678701

If the top 500 companies paid all their profit in taxes, and you took every penny above 250,000 from everyone making 250,000 and up, you would have enough money to cover U.S. spending for about 7 months.

[pascal !n5Z3VuZapw No.3678739]

>>3678701
Better to have 20k jobs. More reason to continue searching for other employement. But enough to live on.

[resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e No.3678754]

>>3678739

Thats a better idea I think. But I think we need a far better policy.

First we need to identify what the problem is. Is it just the fact that we are in a recession?

[Anonymous No.3678761]

>>3678686
>a train to the netherlands
>from America

That would take... what, a month?

[Anonymous No.3678765]

>>3678719

Then we have an epic 7-month party. Let's do it.

[Liberty !!nQrIRh+JHbs No.3678768]

>>3678754
>>3678739

That is not how logical welfare works. Welfare should be the absolute worst thing possible. There should be just enough money to SURVIVE. No entertainment, no fun that costs money ever. 20,000 is way too much.

[Anonymous No.3678770]

>>3678719
>If the top 500 companies paid all their profit in taxes

Shit nigger, you'd have enough trouble getting MegaCorpsRUs just to pay the taxes legally and morally due.

[Anonymous No.3678775]

>>3678597

> people are lunatics because they want to keep the full product of their labor

> ignores the contributions of others via things like infrastructure, police protection, and education that make those products possible, thinking everyone like an island

> supports capitalism

mfw

[Liberty !!nQrIRh+JHbs No.3678783]

>>3678770

> moral tax due
> not a religiousesque argument based entirely upon emotion

Pic one.

>>3678775

Education, police, and infrastructure can, and have been, paid for through consent. In fact, it happens even now.

> capitalism

Haha, the mixed economy welfare state that is 'merica is not at all capitalism.

[Anonymous No.3678795]

>>3678754
Confidence, Debt, and no real investment opportunities are the problem.

[Anonymous No.3678799]

>/sci/ - Politics & Economics

[Anonymous No.3678803]

>>3678783
Morally due because it was determined by the democratically elected government, and because everybody else pays the tax that is due.

Perhaps I should have stuck with "legally due".

[Anonymous No.3678805]

>>3678783
>libertarianism
>not a religiousesque argument based entirely upon emotion
Oh u

[Anonymous No.3678808]

>>3678799
>/sci/ - Politics, Religion & Trolling

[Anonymous No.3678812]

>>3678701

I'm of the opinion that there aren't nearly enough effective teachers, but that the field is quite oversaturated with warm bodies.

Here's the problem though: If you raise teacher salaries you don't necessarily attract a commensurate amount of talent, and I think the debacle of standardized testing proves that you can't force teachers to teach better, and I don't think one could muster the political will to break contracts with all the inept teachers in the country, either. So what the fuck do you do?

[Anonymous No.3678818]

> stimulus package

Lol. Sounds kinky.

[Anonymous No.3678821]

>>3678597

>Anybody but the ultra-ultra-rich keeping the full product of their labor, taxes or no taxes

Nigga u srs?

[Anonymous No.3678827]

Spending cuts:
Deep military cuts, close gitmo, close most foreign bases, only keep r&d, and a large standing force for actual defense.

Revenue increases:
Increase taxes across the board, start taxing the poor, leave the middle class mostly alone, increase tax rate on the extremely wealthy (>180k/yr approx), kill most deductions, legalize marijuana, tax it heavily, reevaluate all nonviolent offenders in jail/prison, offer them a "work out of prison" scenario, close as many prisons as possible. Tax the fuck out of companies who outsource shit, fuck NAFTA.

Spending:
Increase NASA and the NIH budget, possibly DARPA, Invest heavily in infrastructure (IE, nationwide fiberoptic gigabit+ internet, widen/fix/add interstate highways, etc).

Unrelated:
End affirmative action, start asking more of our schools/teachers/children, start a focus on getting physically in shape in the US, end massive corn subsidies.

Vote Anon, 2012!

[resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e No.3678828]

>>3678795

Okay so if thats how you feel, does OP's solution resolve that with reasonable costs?

>>3678812

I think I agree. You are distinguishing between teachers and good teachers right? Our education system is all kinds of bad. We certainly have a lot of people employed as teachers. I dont think they really accomplish anything.

[Anonymous No.3678834]

>>3678444
Pulling back troops? Do they still get paid? I mean you're going to bring people back from war, which is their job, your basically firing them.

I support your idea but there are a lot of groups with special interests and congress is divided. Obama could try to push it through like he did with healthcare but that'd hurt him for re-election. I think Obama is a good moderate president so he'll try to get bipartisanship support and that would ultimately lead to nothing getting done because both sides can't agree (mainly the republicans being dicks). If Obama does force those proposals through and it hurts his re-election, the backlash could get us a shitty republican elected and that'll do more bad than good.

[Anonymous No.3678835]

Saw that OP was a terrible troll pretending to be a libtard. 1/10 for getting me to reply. Whatever happened to /news/ so all these politcal trolls could fester in one place?

[Anonymous No.3678839]

Is this science?

[Anonymous No.3678841]

>>3678827
>legalize marijuana
Got my vote.

>tax it heavily
Fuck off.

[Negro Anon !8CPGzC8jII No.3678847]

>>3678827
>>3678444
Run on these platforms, surroude yourself with smart people and get a majority of your people elected into congress and I'll vote for you, Anon.

[Anonymous No.3678854]

>>3678828

I'm pretty certain they don't accomplish a lot, but it's an incredibly tricky situation. Frankly I think the only way you'll get the sort of quality control you need in the education business is to enact some sort of supply control. As loathe as I am to admit it, why isn't there an AMA for teachers? Why is going to college under an Education major not as big as deal as going to Med School?

[Anonymous No.3678858]

>>3678827
I can rally around most of this...

[Anonymous No.3678861]

You forgot one thing : the country whose problems you want to solve is full of dumbass Amerifags who won't accept those measures because they don't understand how economy works and why you should increase taxes.

[Liberty !!nQrIRh+JHbs No.3678862]

>>3678803

GE, for example, received money back last year because of GOVERNMENT subsides for "green" energy. Are you against green energy or for corporations paying no tax?

>>3678805

I am not a libertarian.

>>3678821

> implying consent is not consensual

nigga, u srs?

>>3678827

That would crash the economy and the corporations left over would become the new state.

[Anonymous No.3678868]

>>3678854
I would like to mention that education has to also align itself with the needs of the economy, if you mass educate and there is no use for that education in the economy, you are throwing away money.

[Anonymous No.3678878]

>>3678862
>Are you against green energy or for corporations paying no tax?

I'm against green energy because it isn't green but that's another argument.

[Anonymous No.3678882]

"Education, police, and infrastructure can, and have been, paid for through consent. In fact, it happens even now."

When these services are private, you get a freerider problem. Either you have to shakedown freeriders, who benefit from services like police without paying for them, in which case the private institution is pretty much just a government institution but with not democratic oversight.

If you privatize something like firefighters, people have to pay to put out fires in the homes of others in their communities who don't pay, to keep the fires from spreading. This necessitates some way of making hem pay, and hence they usually prefer public firefigters to private ones.

Privatizing education is just an accounting trick. Sure, you pay less in taxes, but poor literacy and numeracy cost businesses due to errors made by employees, and people who have no means of getting themselves out of poverty will be more willing to turn to and tolerate crime.

Privatizing roads doesn't usually improve quality of service, but it does increase costs.

Privatizing water utilities has usually just lead to companies selling off water utility assets in the developing world, decreasing investment by outside companies and spreading illness.

Increasing gaps between the rich and poor has the same effect as the above, but can also lead to social instability.

Libertarians basically want the same world we have now, but with fewer to no democratic institutions, and a tougher time for the poor. They can't see how paying a little in the short term, out of what they have at the moment can lead to increases in wealth down the road, just like chimpanzees, monkeys, and small children.


"Haha, the mixed economy welfare state that is 'merica is not at all capitalism."

Doesn't matter. Free market or otherwise, capitalism is just exploitation in varying degrees, and the only reason you're okay with it is because it benefits you, or you think it will benefit you.

[Anonymous No.3678885]

>to play for it, end wars and pull back all overseas troops (except the ones in japan), increase tax on ultra rich to 1945 levels
>to play for it
>to play for it
>play for it
>play

Sage for idiocy. Also, secondly for "increasing tax on wealthy." Taxing the producers for producing is *not* going to be beneficial for the economy.

[Liberty !!nQrIRh+JHbs No.3678890]

>>3678854

> education major

Anyone can do it.

> medical major

Not anyone can do it.

Supply and demand.

[Anonymous No.3678895]

>>3678882

Meant as a reply to:

>>3678783

[Anonymous No.3678897]

>>3678827

>Close most foreign bases
>maintain a large standing force

Full retard status up in this. You keep foreign bases open in order to project power quickly across the globe, which in of itself is how American national defense works. Frankly if you let things brew up into a war where they can slug the US from across the ocean, things have already gotten really fucked.

The rest of this is pretty much the generic Internet 17 Year Old's Platform, its flaws have already been discussed at length by people more articulate than I (nationwide gigabit internet in a country as large and as sparsely populated as the US? Really?) so I don't really need to get into it. A lot of shit you say is wrong. I'm going to leave it at that because you won't get into a debate that isn't emotional and I'm not going to get into that type of argument over the internet.

[Anonymous No.3678909]

>>3678841

Even with ridiculous taxes, it would still be WAY cheaper than it is now. Supply is limited since it's illegal, which keeps the price up artificially. There's absolutely no reason why 1 lb of decent weed should cost thousands of dollars. It doesn't take 2-3000 dollars worth of effort to grow one decent sized outdoor plant.

[Anonymous No.3678913]

>>3678890

The only reason not everyone can do med school is because med school has incredibly difficult criteria to access it compared to an education major, and that those criteria were established by a standing institution developed to control the available supply of doctors.

[Anonymous No.3678914]

>>3678841
Even taxed at a 100% rate I imagine costs @ the end user would decrease. Not to mention you could enjoy it without fear of reprisal. And if price didn't go down, your illegal suppliers would continue to supply, and you can go to them.

>>a few posts
Troops pulled out of combat would have to be retained for the remainder of their contracts, also, if we are going to "fire" them, well, that fiberoptics infrastructure and highway crews are gonna need employees... Also local police/postal employees share a retirement/tenure/seniority package with military so they could go there (or, GI bill college->science degree->DARPA/NIH).

[Anonymous No.3678919]

>>3678909
So? Surely taxation of drugs should scale with the necessary government spending on healthcare that results from their use? In which case the tax levied on cannabis would be... almost nil. And what about personal growers? Would you tax them?

[Anonymous No.3678937]

Fiscal stimulus of the economy is needed.

The government should spend on infrastructure. For example the US DOT has been relatively late in introducing roundabouts as the efficient, self-regulating, life saving devices they are. A national program of roundabout building, over state based efforts, would stimulate the whole economy & avoid the double dip.

[Anonymous No.3678938]

>>3678919
>pot
>health problems
Full retard, etc.
But seriously, people do not do a smudge more drugs if they are legal (see Portugal), but instead of giving money to some drug lords, so he can build a house made of pure gold, it goes to the government

[Anonymous No.3678952]

>>3678937
>roundabouts

I thought America hated them in perpetuity.

[Anonymous No.3678953]

>>3678897
Fiber scales well. Only the last mile optics really present a real problem due to population scarcity, which fiber-to-the-home (gb+) could be limited to economically viable areas.

We really need to stop projecting our nation's "power" everywhere, it's costing us billions, and garnering hate from the rest of the planet, some that we deserve, some that we don't. We can't project our might if we are weak.

Come at me, brah.

[Anonymous No.3678954]

>>3678937

It's a tried and tested strategy.

[Anonymous No.3678958]

>>3678938

Reading comprehension is a vital skill.

>In which case the tax levied on cannabis would be... almost nil

[resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e No.3678961]

I alway think this "Spend money on infrastructure!" argument kind of falls apart.

If we need infrastructure, we should buy it, regardless of whether we are in a recession.

If the infrastructure was so unimportant that to discover it you had to face a recession and a need for demand, chances are its not a good idea.

[Liberty !!nQrIRh+JHbs No.3678971]

>>3678882

The freerider program exists when there is a government paying for it also.

No, they can hose down houses that pay, and let those that do not pay lose their home.

The government building roads do it for the cheapest bid. No good quality, and the costs are much bore than a private entity.

With the education now, people get fuck ups very often. You simply weed them out with good hiring skills.

Government run utilities fail more often.

The implication that there can ever be equal wealth is so silly you have to be a trotsky fan.

Democracy is a joke. Majority force rule is 51 rapists telling 49 women rape is now legal.

Capitalism is a free market. There is no moral or otherwise attachment with it. It is simply economic freedom.

[Anonymous No.3678982]

>>3678952

Yes Americans are vitriolic about them. But once they've driven around them for a few weeks they change their opinions. Roundabouts are one case of democracy failing. Civic leaders should never put them to a vote.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jZNkzgzPeOg

[Anonymous No.3678987]

>>3678919
There are almost no health negatives from weed. Private growers would be free to proceed, start selling? Pay taxes. Grow it for your own use/give it away? Go ahead.

[Anonymous No.3678992]

>>3678961

But the point of the roundabout example is that it's desperately needed, the loss of life on US roads proportionately dwarfs other western countries, but that people don't THINK they need them (and hate them!)

[Anonymous No.3678994]

>>3678953

You say this like being weak is something to aspire to. And it might be if you were weak and had no enemies. But just because the USA is weak doesn't mean its enemies will vanish, in fact something the opposite happens when the strong is made weak. Costing billions isn't actually as big a deal as the trillions we're spending on our active conflicts where you and I are in lockstep agreement that they should end as rapidly as possible. That said, I have a sneaking suspicion that our timetables differ greatly.

It's the laying of the fiber optic which presents a problem because for pretty much the whole of the East Coast and Midwest you're basically digging through someones backyard which is both an imposition and something requiring compensation which I'm sure you have not added into your cost-benefit analysis (that is if you've done one at all.) I don't have a problem with getting good net hooked up for the country but baby steps. Get it in cities first and foremost, and connect them later. Also, who owns these lines exactly? Will there be a US Government Internet Service Department installed when this system comes operational, or will the USG lease the lines out to the local companies?

[Anonymous No.3679004]

>>3678938
>>3678987
>There are almost no health negatives from weed.
Did you two even read the quoted post?

>Private growers would be free to proceed
So it would be a tax on commercial sales, as with booze? Wouldn't there be a problem due to how fucking easy it is to grow weed? Once people cotton on to that, the tax take will fall through the floor.

[pascal !PascaL9QAg No.3679016]

>>3678761
I estimate about 2 days with high speed rail. A surprisingly large portion of that being just from england through france/belgium to the netherlands.
>>3678919
I could personal grow tobacco if I wanted. Still buy it from store with ridiculous taxes. I imagine that will be the same for marijuana.

[resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e No.3679022]

>>3678992

If we really need them, and its obvious that the public cant provide it for itself because of social forces. Then buy it.

[Anonymous No.3679034]

>>3679016
>I estimate about 2 days with high speed rail. A surprisingly large portion of that being just from england through france/belgium to the netherlands.

I don't understand, the England-Netherlands leg is the shortest part of the journey and the Eurostar IS high-speed rail. Are you envisaging China-style Maglev between America and the UK?

[Anonymous No.3679035]

>>3679022

So what is and was your opinion of roundabouts?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zLMMGclhbEY

[Anonymous No.3679038]

>>3679022
How would you personally choose to increase jobs and economic growth?

[Anonymous No.3679051]

>>3679035
I guess every country has some bizarre spectre that its people will rage against. In the UK we had a thing for the MMR vaccination, would you believe. People are just silly.

[resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e No.3679068]

>>3679035

Oh I dont know. I dont really care.

A neighborhood near by recently had like 4 or 5 round abouts installed. The idea was they would have them for a year and then vote on whether to keep them. I think they kept half or something.

>>3679038

Im of the opinion that jobs arent a very good metric for economic health, because you can make the economy look better by employing people to do nothing. Or you could not be in a recession, having a healthy economy, made of people doing something bad.

I dont think there is a single thing the government can do to promote economic growth. The government can improve itself by not spending so much and cutting removing programs like the DoD, medicare and social security.

The economy is the only thing that can heal itself.

[Anonymous No.3679077]

>>3678994
Accurate cost-benefit on that is nearly impossible. There have been a few models on how the lines would be leased/managed, I'd have to consult a panel of experts to see which is the most realistic. Examples would be, gov't provides "basic" high speed, leases lines to private companies who provide last-mile Fiber and increased speeds. Or, alternatively, gub'ment takes over lines completely, and if private companies can deal, they do so independently. I don't like that one, because it seems it's prone to censorship, etc. Or, subsidize FO installation via private companies, I don't like that either, but it's been proposed.

Conflicts abroad that we're involved in are pretty useless at this point, we should have intervened in Afghanistan, but when we came, al Qaeda left, so should we. Iraq we shoulda left a looooong time ago.

The foreign bases wouldn't all be closed, just downsized if they're necessary/useful, eliminated if they're superfluous/stupid/tactically unimportant in a realistic scenario.

[pascal !PascaL9QAg No.3679083]

>>3679034
assuming the bridge ends up in Scotland. versus traveling through Ireland. A train from Edinburgh to Rotterdam takes 10-11 hours. the straight distance is about 400 miles. The bridge would be a little over 4000 miles long. So at 150-180 mph it would take 22-27 hours.

Thats why I said a surprising amount of time. because 10% of the distance takes 30% of the time.

[Anonymous No.3679089]

>>3679068
>you can make the economy look better by employing people to do nothing
>do nothing

They prefer being called Civil Servants, you know.

[Anonymous No.3679281]

>>3679068

> dont think there is a single thing the government can
to to promote economic growth

Yes there is.

>The government can improve itself by not spending so much and cutting removing programs like the DoD, medicare and social security.

That would hurt economic growth, especially in the current environment.

>The economy is the only thing that can heal itself.

Not in the current environment.

[resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e No.3679320]

>>3679281

>Yes there is.

Maybe I phrased that poorly. I meant the government cant easily improve the economy by making large single policies.

But I actually take that back. I dont know why I said that.

>That would hurt economic growth, especially in the current environment.

How?

Something has to be done about social security, because in the future it will simply be impossible to pay.

DoD costs money, and provides America with nothing.

[Anonymous No.3679342]

>>3679320

>Something has to be done about social security, because in the future it will simply be impossible to pay.

What you don't realize is that the US federal government can print its currency. Therefore any idea of government "financing" its spending is simply false. The government creates the money the moment it spends it therefore the government is best thought of as never having money in the first place. And it never will have money. The only effective limit on government spending, besides the ludicrous "debt ceiling," is the rate of inflation and currently there is minimal inflation as the private sector is swamped with bubble-level debts and is grasping for money from wherever it can get it to pay off that debt. The government can provide that money by running large deficits as it has been. A balanced budget in this environment would be catastrophic. We are barely above water running a trillion dollar deficit.

[resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e No.3679359]

>>3679342

What do you mean its prints its own currency?

[sage No.3679366]

Why the fuck is this in /sci/?

sage goes in all fields

[pascal !PascaL9QAg No.3679369]

>>3679320
pascal's economy plan.

Offer social security optouts to anyone under 35. They can take a single check payment, the amount based upon what they paid in. And never pay social security again. This would drastically cut long term social security problems, and although it would hurt the current budget a bit, the money would mostly be going to lower income people, who would spent it, hopefully stimulating the economy.

[Anonymous No.3679375]

>>3679359

The US federal government is the only entity that can create net US dollars. When the government spends it creates the money out of nothing and deposits it in the private sector, meaning the federal government is the private sector's source of money, see pic.

[Anonymous No.3679395]

>>3678444
will u idiots stop talking about cutting military spending?

also, why not just create a new industry all together, like the computer industry did in the 70's and cars did after ww2?
i vote removing space junk

[Anonymous No.3679400]

>>3679375
wow that's so cool i didnt know the IMF and federal reserve corporation is part of the usa federal government
/sarcasm

[Anonymous No.3679407]

>>3679375
NO. The government pays for itself through taxes and other borrowing. Seignorage, which is what you're talking about, is a very very small component of government funding.

[resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e No.3679408]

>>3679375

If the US could just invent money, and never needed to tax anyone, than the money supply would grow by its spending. This would result in immense inflation. To counter that inflation they would need to lower the money supply which I imagine could manifest itself in taxes.

I just dont understand what you are saying. I dont understand how or why you are saying the US is the only entity which creates money.

[Anonymous No.3679411]

>>3679369
opt out of medicare? and just how do u plan on paying for your nursing home costs?
inb4 who cares, i'll die on the street

[Anonymous No.3679417]

>>3679369
Oh yeah.
The economy doesn't need old people and poor people who do not spend much, right?

[Anonymous No.3679425]

Relevant to this thread:

- Warren Buffet wants to be taxed more, critique http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zOb4niS0BOg&feature=channel_video_title

http://danieljmitchell.wordpress.com/2011/08/15/warren-buffetts-fiscal-innumeracy/

Debunking of common misconceptions - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ihwg5lbnEww&feature=relmfu

[resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e No.3679427]

I say we make forms that read as the following:

>"check here to opt out of social security"

>everyone too lazy to check there

[Anonymous No.3679429]

ITT: austrain economic idealists

[Anonymous No.3679438]

>>3679408

>federal reserve corporation is part of the usa federal government

The Fed is the treasury's lapdog implementing the treasury's fiscal operations.

>If the US could just invent money, and never needed to tax anyone, than the money supply would grow by its spending. This would result in immense inflation. To counter that inflation they would need to lower the money supply which I imagine could manifest itself in taxes.

Correct. But we are in an environment where there is large demand for money so running a large deficit right now won't cause run away inflation.

>I just dont understand what you are saying. I dont understand how or why you are saying the US is the only entity which creates money.

It is the only entity that can create net US dollars. See that? US US US US US dollars.

[Liberty !!nQrIRh+JHbs No.3679445]

>>3679425

More relevant.

Warren Buffet has not paid taxes on his business for four years. He is disputing the taxes.

[Anonymous No.3679447]

>>3679438
hi keep studying before you post more nonsense

[Anonymous No.3679453]

>>3679445
amazon.com disputes taxes
irs workers dispute taxes based on taxing my labor

DISPUTING TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENATION IS NOT THE SAME AS NOT PAYING TAXES

[Anonymous No.3679456]

>>3679445

His business is a public corporation, which is required by law to act like a greedy psychopath who's scared he'll be sued for not being greedy enough.

[Anonymous No.3679460]

>>3679447

Funny Warren Buffet agrees with me.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xVOn371TCPo#t=12m15s

[Anonymous No.3679468]

>>3679460
rich guy agreeing with you =/= you know what you're talking about

[resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e No.3679475]

>>3679438

> But we are in an environment where there is large demand for money

How do you know there is a large demand for money? Could use a different word than "large", and refer to some numbers relative to some other numbers?

>It is the only entity that can create net US dollars. See that?

I know, you keep saying that and I keep staring at it thinking "Huh?" and "What?" and "Why cant I understand why this man is saying this?"

I understand that the Federal Reserve manages the money supply in the US. They arent a part of the US government, but I could see how its silly to distinguish the Fed from the government. With that said, the Fed doesnt literally just print money. The Fed controls various rates that banks can loan out money which expands and contracts the money supply.

I dont think they just go "Here you go Federal government, here is that money you asked for"

But I dont want to act like I have a perfect understanding of how the Fed works.

[Anonymous No.3679478]

>>3679468

Except, when it's a rich guy who makes his money by understanding this stuff. Keep being edgy, kid.

[Anonymous No.3679499]

>>3679475

>How do you know there is a large demand for money?

See pic.

>"Here you go Federal government, here is that money you asked for"

http://ftalphaville.ft.com/blog/2011/07/26/634841/the-feds-1-6-trillion-somethings/

[Anonymous No.3679506]

>>3679499

Quote:

"Bernanke confirmed the staggeringly simple reality that not a single taxpayers’ dollar is actually spent or lent when the Fed follows the Treasury’s instructions to credit any account, anywhere, for anything. This is because the Fed is creating – as an agent on behalf of the Treasury – an exact “look-alike” of a Treasury IOU or promissory note. ie the Fed is simply pledging the Treasury’s credit by creating tax credits."

[Anonymous No.3679509]

are u the same idiot who wants to cut military spending and stop social security?
shut the fuck up, russian spy.

[resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e No.3679521]

>>3679499

And what does that graph suggest about the demand for money?

[Anonymous No.3679538]

>>3679521

You need money to service debt.

[pascal !PascaL9QAg No.3679541]

>>3679411
the 2023 healthcare reform bill, will take care of my old age medical needs.

[Liberty !!nQrIRh+JHbs No.3679553]

>>3679541

> not being in demand due to your biology degree

You will absolutely need money gotten through theft of labor. At least the mafia works for it.

[resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e No.3679568]

>>3679538

Yeah but

1. You dont need to print money to pay off debt

2. Printing off enough money to pay off that debt just inflates the currency.

You dont seem to believe that inflation would occur.

[Anonymous No.3679574]

>>3678444
>why didn't we do this?

Same reason we're still drowning under an imaginary concept like debt and deluding ourselves that there is anything dignified about labor.

People are stupid, this is still carry over from religion (sweat of one's brow and so on)

[Anonymous No.3679577]

>>3679568

>You dont seem to believe that inflation would occur.

Right, that's exactly what we should worry about right now. With negative TIPS and a 2% 10-year.

[Anonymous No.3679581]

>>3679577

Forgot pic

[pascal !PascaL9QAg No.3679599]

>>3679553 biology degree

Actually I'm working towards a doctorate of education. At my current pace I should be done by the time I am 40

[Anonymous No.3679607]

MADFEST 2011
MADFEST 2011
MADFEST 2011
MADFEST 2011
MADFEST 2011
MADFEST 2011
MADFEST 2011
MADFEST 2011
MADFEST 2011
MADFEST 2011
MADFEST 2011
MADFEST 2011
MADFEST 2011

[Liberty !!nQrIRh+JHbs No.3679609]

>>3679599

> education

[resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e No.3679615]

>>3679577

I think inflation would occur.

I would think, in a hypothetical economy where there are $20, and I own $10 and another guy owns $10, and he loans me $5. And I suddenly print $5 to pay him off. I think inflation occurs. Since the money supply increased without reflecting any real increase of economic activity, or physical economic growth.

Is there something wrong with thinking that?

I recognize we have a lot of debt. I think thats a big concern.

[Anonymous No.3679626]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WibmcsEGLKo

[Anonymous No.3679632]

>>3679615

Inflation would occur, but there are larger problems in our current economy than inflation when 10-years yield 2%.

[Anonymous No.3679649]

>>3678701
>Teachers at the moment dont...

I refuse to consider raising pay for teachers as an option until tenure is removed so that incompetents can be weeded out. This is an industry where we protect people who are harming children and our future societies by fucking up their formative education.

It's not the only change needed in education but it is a start.

>>3678739
>But enough to live on.
Except it's not you can't survive on 20k anymore, you must be thinking of the 80s. You'd be looking at 1/6 - 1/4 of that immediately going to just buying gas to get to work.

[Anonymous No.3679657]

>>3679649

>You'd be looking at 1/6 - 1/4 of that immediately going to just buying gas to get to work.

Then live in your office. Fucking welfare queens.

[Anonymous No.3679659]

>>3679083

>riding a train across Atlantic Ocean
>train breaks down halfway

[Anonymous No.3679670]

>>3679615
Inflation is caused by increasing prices. The way prices increase is increasing cost of the factors of production: land, labor, capital

The way a higher money growth rate creates a higher inflation rate is by making the supply of each or one of these go down, thus increasing the price. The dynamics are: more demand->more land, labor, capital used up-> less supply growth->greater wages, investment, dividends, rent needs to be payed->more cost->higher prices.

If there is one break in the chain, it wont happen. The problem is that there is very meek demand overall right now and a high inventory of L,K and land

[pascal !PascaL9QAg No.3679671]

>>3679649
I'm living off of 22k in a very expensive part of the country.

[Anonymous No.3679673]

>>3679626

You do realize that speech was a joke, right?

[Anonymous No.3679679]

>government does new deal like stimulus package, directly paying for 10,000,000 60K jobs, mainly infrastructure and teaching
>unemployment rate drops to 6%
>reccession ends
>government slowly eases of it over 2-6 years
>total cost: at most 3 trillion
>to play for it, end wars and pull back all overseas troops (except the ones in japan), increase tax on ultra rich to 1945 levels

because the rich controlls everything

[Anonymous No.3679680]

>>3679673
You do realize it wasn't right?

[Anonymous No.3679681]

>>3679671

Well I'm in a really cheap part of the country pulling about 22k and I'm fucking drowning.

But let's not get anecdotal here.

[Anonymous No.3679687]

>>3679680

Right about what?

[Anonymous No.3679699]

>>3679687
About it not being a joke. Charlie Chaplin did in fact believe those things.

[pascal !PascaL9QAg No.3679700]

>>3679681
anecdotes aside, somewhere around 20-25% of us households make less than 22500 a year.

[Anonymous No.3679707]

>>3679673
You'd have to be a cynical fuck to that it was just a joke.

[Anonymous No.3679710]

>>3679699

I think everyone does, that's the problem. It's just a bunch of hyperbole with utterly no real solutions. If you think that's inspiring, you're easily persuaded.

[Anonymous No.3679721]

>>3679707

Really? A man who's dressed up as a great passionate speaker who talked about the return of the golden age of Europe in such a way that inspired people. Then Chaplin, a man who speaks about the golden age of humanity with such passion that is inspired you. The point is there is no substance, no solutions, nothing in that video but passion and hyperbole. You can fill in the blank with any fucking ideology you want.

[resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e No.3679740]

>>3679670

Why are you distinguishing between prices going up and inflation? We measure inflation by comparing prices. Its inappropriate to say "Inflation is caused by increasing prices.' It IS increasing prices.

How does more land labor and capital being "used up" result in less supply growth?

I think I understand what you are saying none the less. At the end of the aggregate supply curve it becomes vertically straight due to physical constraints. I believed, that what drives demand to that point is an increase in the money supply which doesnt reflect any real value. Which gives people the idea "hey I can just pay him more and charge more" to begin with.

>The problem is that there is very meek demand overall right now and a high inventory of L,K and land

If you want more demand, it wont do you any good if that "demand" doesnt represent anything. Thats why on paper it looks like a good idea to increase demand, but without considering what you are demanding, you could hurt the people in the economy.

[resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e No.3679746]

>>3679707

What you said.

The cynicism on this board has been hurting lately.

[Anonymous No.3679754]

>>3679681
something tells me you are not as good as the other guy when it comes to buying/cooking food

[Liberty !!nQrIRh+JHbs No.3679759]

>>3679670

Inflation is actually just the creating of more money than demanded. The prices rising is just one of the many consequent.

[Anonymous No.3679763]

>>3679740

But we aren't in a normal recession.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recession#Balance_sheet_recession

So we need fiscal expansion to get any demand at all.

[Anonymous No.3679775]

>>3679710
I completely disagree. He's not offering solutions he's questioning the direction and values of society. The argument is that the greed of a few can lead us to suffering for many. I don't understand why people say its just not realistic to want a peaceful world. Most of the people in this world don't want to suffer or have others suffer but we live in a world where that is the norm because it feeds the greedy power hungry assholes that weasel their way to the top. The whole point of the message is to get people to think about how to make a better world rather than accept a the status quo.

[Anonymous No.3679787]

>>3679775

Unless you have a 5,000 page elaboration on how to organize our society, please, stop talking. Your ideas are just phantoms in your head until you put them on paper. "huur we should be more friendly to people" is absolutely nothing, in fact, its less than nothing.

[Anonymous No.3679798]

Looking at this thread I can tell that /sci/ is smart. I'm happy to have such young intelligent men and women in the country we all know and love.

[Anonymous No.3679799]

>>3679787

Anyone who has a "5,000 page elaboration" about how society should be organized is just blowing smoke. Society has to figure that out for itself. The whole point is to realize that there are may be better ways of running things in this world and to try to convince society to act to find those ways.

[Anonymous No.3679805]

>>3678937
>Roundabout
>Safe
>Efficient

This is laughable, I avoid the few circles around here like the plague because they're just a complete bitch to deal with. When you have to wait 10 minutes for traffic to stop coming at you so you can finally make your 'right hand turn' you'll agree with me. The only thing it's better for is U-turns.

I suppose they might indirectly improve safety if widely implemented because fewer people might drive.

>>3678982
>Roundabout safety goes out the window when traffic stops dead in them
>Put pedestrian crossings in them
whatthehellareyoudoing.jpg

[Anonymous No.3679809]

>>3679721
Telling people that we can make the world a good place for everyone without violence isn't exactly the same thing. He's not promising to give us a brighter future he's telling people they need to make it happen. Did you expect him to lay out specific plans in a brief speech? He wanted people to stop and think about where society is headed. I think its something people need to do today. Since when did the American dream become about being rich instead of about finding prosperity and happiness? I don't like what this country seems to stand for anymore and I think it can be better. I think this is a good speech to get people thinking about what kind of world they want to live in.

[Anonymous No.3679824]

>>3679805

>I suppose they might indirectly improve safety if widely implemented because fewer people might drive.

Well, it depends. Rotaries aren't bad with low-to-moderate traffic level intersections.

[Anonymous No.3679825]

>>3679740
>It IS increasing prices.

I derped there with the language, sorry. But we have to be careful, because a constant rise in prices might not mean a rise in inflation.

Its like distance and velocity. Distance might be increasing but velocity might be constant: inflation is the rate of change of prices.

>How does more land labor and capital being "used up" result in less supply growth?

Another derp. I meant supply growth of the factors of production as measured by supply of this period - supply of last period. More demand dries up the existent supply.

>At the end of the aggregate supply curve it becomes vertically straight due to physical constraints.

You mean for the AS-AD model? No, if that's the case. The model in itself has the factors of production built in. Some versions simplify it as just labor though. It just leads to higher prices.

[resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e No.3679840]

>>3679763

Well will always be SOME demand. You cant say "to get ANY demand."

Even if there is massive debt, the value in the economy hasnt yet disappeared, and we can still generate value which can pay off debt. A recession just means we are generating LESS value than before. So there is still demand. It just wasnt as much as the government lead the economy to believe via an inappropriately high money supply.

What do you think is going to happen if we dont print massive amounts of money? What are you so scared of that you think we need to inflate the currency to pay off debt?

[Anonymous No.3679854]

>>3679068
>cut medicare and SS
>crime rises exponentially
>all the money saved ends up getting spent on prisons

Stay classy economists.

[Anonymous No.3679861]

>>3679840

>What do you think is going to happen if we dont print massive amounts of money?

Let's look at what's happening while we are printing massive amounts of money.

http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2011/09/02/economists-react-disturbing-employment-report/?KEYWORDS=no
n-farm+payrolls

Beautiful, let's cut spending.

>and we can still generate value which can pay off debt.

And at current levels of growth that will be years, a decade even, of low growth. Good let's do that. Let's keep unemployment at 9%+ because inflation is 0.5% too high.

[Liberty !!nQrIRh+JHbs No.3679864]

>>3679854

Old people will not start committing more crime per capita. Thy will die faster. Win, win.

[Liberty !!nQrIRh+JHbs No.3679875]

>>3679861

Real inflation is more like 10 percent. They have simply redefined what inflation is 15 or so times since it began.

[Pinkie Pie No.3679878]

>>3679825

>I derped there with the language, sorry.

Its okay

> because a constant rise in prices might not mean a rise in inflation.

Really? How could prices rise without affecting inflation?


>You mean for the AS-AD model? No, if that's the case.

Yeah thats what I meant.

So, Im still trying to understand what you are saying.

So the growth of of the factors of production are measured by supply T0 - supply T(-1)

What do you mean by "more demand dries up the existent supply"

Sorry for all of these "what does X mean" questions

>>3679854

How would crime go up?

In my perception, SS is just enforced retirement saving. And medicare is like an inefficient form of healthcare. I have my own options about healthcare, so my opinion isnt "FUCK OLD PEOPLE" Or "FUCK CRIPPLED PEOPLE" I would want medicare to be replaced by a different policy. One that provides healthcare to everyone, and not just old people.

[Anonymous No.3679884]

>>3679787
I'll rephrase so you can understand. The speech no more about offering a solution to societal problems than was Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.'s "I have dream" speech. It was about getting people to think about what they want to value as a society compared to how things are. I really think the part about how people would rather live by the happiness of others rather than the suffering of others is a powerful message. I'm tired of assholes saying we need to strengthen our economy when they really mean we need to increase the GDP. I'd rather ten families be comfortable and happy than make one million dollars a year and I don't see why that is a bad thing. Money and power should be treated as a means to an end but it seems to be treated as an end all by itself.

[resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e No.3679885]

>>3679878

Thats me.

I still dont know why my name field auto fills with "Pinkie Pie." I havent been able to fix that.

[Anonymous No.3679886]

>>3679875

You subscribe to shadow stats eh?

[Liberty !!nQrIRh+JHbs No.3679903]

>>3679878

> mfw pinkie pie
> mfw this has happened to you before
> mfw this can't be an accident this many times
> mfw you use the name pinkie pie on 4chan

[Anonymous No.3679904]

Open question to everyone saying "tax the multi-billion dollar corporations", you know who makes most of the manufacturing/research/engineering jobs in America right? You know who makes most of the technological advancements in the world, right? The only reason I see to EVER tax these job behemoths, would be when they outsource their work, otherwise we shouldn't have them pay ANY taxes. Say we listen to some of the far left and decide to tax them up the ass, what happens then? They realize that another country has a much lower tax rate, and that they can make a bigger profit over there, then they leave. Instead of being the country they leave for having ridiculous tax rates, we could be the country that they leave for their low taxes. As long as they're here creating jobs, we've got a steady source of taxable income, their employees, not to mention the sales taxes on their products, the money going into infrastructure and upkeep, etc. etc. etc. Fuck, for them bringing us as much as they do, we should pay them to be here.

[Liberty !!nQrIRh+JHbs No.3679911]

>>3679904

Why think when you can just huuur derp thems evil rich people need to be taxed more yo?

[Anonymous No.3679929]

>>3679904

But they do outsource. And whenever we lower their taxes, they actually just hoard that money and use it to fund expansions in other countries. Oftentimes they actually CUT jobs (look up the tax amnesty done under Bush) when we cut their taxes.

And more than outsourcing, often they get foreigners to come and take high skilled jobs in the US because they figure they don't need to pay them as much as a US citizen.

And finally, many corporations use loopholes to not even pay ANY taxes. Look it up.

Basically, cutting taxes on the rich only helps the rich. We had our best times when the taxes were MUCH higher than now.

[Anonymous No.3679935]

>>3679904

You know it was the government that initially developed the internet, computers, gps, so and so forth. The government takes the risk in creating new technologies through our defense budget and just passes the tech off to the private sector to profit. So yes they should pay higher taxes for what the government provides them.

[Liberty !!nQrIRh+JHbs No.3679943]

>>3679929

> have corporate tax rate at over double the average industrial nation
> want to raise it
> i don't get why they move jobs out of the u.s.

> mfw these morons

[Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH No.3679964]

>>3679943
Blatant falsehoods.

[Anonymous No.3679977]

>>3679943
>have any corporate tax rate at all instead of taxing capital gains at a higher rate

[Anonymous No.3679978]

>>3679425
>Debunking of common misconceptions
>Wages have increase ... health-care ... etc

In other words if a company wants to pay their employees more without actually paying them more they can just give more money to the insurance company.

So insurance gets dosh and you get the same health-care but economically you just got a raise. It all makes sense now.

>consumer items
So cost of consumer items falling actually means people have more money. Good to know that cell phones getting cheaper helps me to feed myself.

[Derpfag No.3679979]

>>3679878
Heres a numerical example. Trust me, it confuses the shit out of people because that's how it is defined.

Let's simplify everything and say that an economy produces one widget at $100 dollars. Next period, its now 105.

So the inflation rate is (105-100)/100 or .05

To keep the inflation rate constant, price in the next period need to rise by 5 percent to 110.25 dollars. Again, if you apply the definition, its

(110.25-105)/105 which is 5%

So you see, prices are rising, but inflation is constant. So inflation is like velocity.

Now what about the simplification. The inflation rate is a certain index derived from a basket of goods. So there you go.

[Anonymous No.3679982]

http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/FDR-s-Policies-Prolonged-Depression-5409.aspx

because employing people to do jobs no one needs is not how you create wealth.

[Anonymous No.3680033]

>>3679982
spending money on infrastructure
and policies that remove competition

are wholly different things

You're thinking of Bush era policies.

[Anonymous No.3680038]

>>3679982

Did you even read the article you linked?

"So he came up with a recovery package that would be unimaginable today, allowing businesses in every industry to collude without the threat of antitrust prosecution and workers to demand salaries about 25 percent above where they ought to have been, given market forces."

[Anonymous No.3680039]

The government can employ people sure but the jobs they do will be worthless, the draft brought it down to 2% but government jobs do no good for the economy they just leech capital from actual ventures that would help the economy.

[resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e No.3680044]

>>3679979

Okay I see what you are sayiing. You are talking about an increase or decrease in inflation, when inflation itself is an increase in prices?

So what does that entail now?

Are you saying the inflation itself isnt as much of a problem as the increase or decrease is?

[Anonymous No.3680053]

>>3680039
>>government jobs do no good for the economy
derp

[Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH No.3680054]

>>3680039
This is what blind laissez faire idiots actually believe.

[Anonymous No.3680064]

>>3680054
Says the keynesian.

[Anonymous No.3680066]

>>3680044

Inflation is a problem when it's at high levels regardless of if it is increasing of decreasing.

[Anonymous No.3680067]

>>3680039

What is the economy?

Is GDP the new way to spell God?

[Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH No.3680073]

>>3680064
I'm pretty sure I'm not a keynesian because I have little to no clue what his policies are, and if they work.

[Anonymous No.3680080]

Republicans want Obama to fail because then they stand a good chance at re-election. Obama being stupid and foolish decides ''let's make a deal'' and bends over to get buttfucked by the republicans over and over and over again until he's expended all of his political capital and thus doesn't have the political will to accomplish anything in congress..

He wont end the wars because he's foolish, plain and simple.

[Anonymous No.3680083]

>>3680073

If only more of 4chan were so honest.

[Derpfag No.3680086]

>>3679878
For the other stuff, its simple supply and demand, the less supply that is available to buy, the higher the price or conversely, the higher the demand, the higher prices they can charge.

>>3680044
What I mean to say is that an increase in the supply of money above normal levels of growth, that is an increase in the money supply growth rate, will lead to an increase in inflation. But this depends on demand being present for the factors of production above normal levels too.

[Anonymous No.3680087]

>>3680080
you mean he won't end them because they were financed by wall street just like his campaigns?

[Anonymous No.3680093]

>>3680053
They don't, government doesn't operate under market forces that determine the value of a product based on competition and consumer demand. They create regardless of demand and as a result you have jobs that have little purpose of benefit. Employment created by the government is inherently wasteful

[Anonymous No.3680101]

>>3680073
You constantly spout keynesian thought.

[Anonymous No.3680104]

>>3680093

That's the most retarded bunch of shit I've heard all day.. ''Jobs don't help anyone''... Oh really? :/

[Anonymous No.3680106]

>>3680093
>>2011

[Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH No.3680109]

>>3680101
As I don't know what keynesian thought it, then maybe I do.

[Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH No.3680113]

>>3680093
>Employment created by the government is inherently wasteful

Copypasta:

Free markets are an indispensable tool to the ends of a materially wealthy and prosperous people. Centrally planned economies fail. Free markets are a means to an ends, not an ends unto themselves. Whenever free markets produce drastically different results than our desired results of a materially wealthy populace, that's when we need to step in with government intervention.

Examples of such times include:
- Tragedy of the commons, freerider problem, and externalities.
- Differing time horizons.
- Acquiring freely available information is not free.
- People are not fully rational agents, merely boundedly rational. This usually doesn't matter, but sometimes it does, like during freak times when people panic.
- Cost barriers to entry are usually not insignificant.
- Extreme wealth disparities allow disproportion influence on the government by certain rich individuals.

Related: The Locke / Adam Smith justification of private property with the labor theory of value is bunk. It rests upon the premise that if I collect a bunch of apples and let them go to waste, it does you no harm because you are free to go collect some other apples from nature. In the real world, apples are fixed, and if I let some apples go to waste, this does demonstrably harm you. Locke weasels out of this by saying you can go to America and get all the free land you want. This loophole no longer exists.

[Anonymous No.3680118]

>>3680104
Lets say I employ you do something but what you do is not productive. Or essentially a job making something there is no demand for, the money paying your wage is a net waste as capital is destroyed creating things that themselves are not wanted. It is little different than paying people to do nothing.

[Anonymous No.3680120]

>>3679904
I disagree with the idea of a corporation, so I support taxing them. There is nothing a corporation does that can't be achieved through other less destructive means or entities. Corporations in the financial industries seem to be one of the most destructive elements of our society. They take at the expense of everyone and give very little back.

[Anonymous No.3680121]

>>3680093
which government jobs specifically have no benefit or purpose?
police?
road workers?
firefighters?
the president?

[Pinkie Pie No.3680129]

>>3680066

Okay I agree.

>>3680086

Okay I agree for the most part. When you say demand for factors of production, are just saying demand for labor and capital etc right? And for the economy to recover there needs to be demand for those things?

This is very interesting.

[Anonymous No.3680130]

>>3680120
They give services back which people pay for if their services weren't needed then they wouldn't be rich.

[Anonymous No.3680127]

>>3680087

I'm still hearing a bunch of retarded shit, then some quotations from some dead dude..

This is why economics is not science, you guys are a bunch of retards. ''Jobs don't help anyone, they are wasteful''-- I'm sure the unemployed person is thinking about that right now, I'm sure my mother working for the gov. in a school is thinking that also.. And I'm sure her using the money given to her from her job to invest in banks,houses,cars etc. isn't helping the economy at all..

Quit with your shit, you try to act all smart but you just sound retarded arguing against something so common sense..

[Anonymous No.3680134]

>>3680101
Why is that a bad thing? Are you so brainwashed that you completely dismiss Keynesian theory?

[Anonymous No.3680135]

>>3680109
What you have to understand is that libertarians use the word "Keyesian" the same way creationists use the word "evolutionist".

[resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e No.3680137]

>>3680129

Damnit, I forgot to change it to not pinkie pie again.

Despite what liberty said. I have never used the name Pinkie Pie until it started showing up in my name field and I ended up accidentally using it a million times.

[Anonymous No.3680152]

>>3680113
Yes that's keynesian economics

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GTQnarzmTOc

[Anonymous No.3680154]

>>3680130
I agree that they give services but the services they offer are not worth the real cost of having corporations exist. Business can still provide these services just not in the form of corporation. Financial industry corporations often don't even provide a valuable service. There is a large section of our economy that solely exist to make money out of nothing, and it is mainly destructive to the people of the society in which they exist. Corporations lead to much in the direction of inequity and greed and those go against my personnel values.

[Anonymous No.3680159]

>>3680135
Its just the opposite the socialists use "capitalism" the same way they use creationists use "evolutionists". In socialism god is replaced by the state because the belief that self interested agents cannot possibly create wealth or prosperity.

[Anonymous No.3680163]

>>3680127
>And I'm sure her using the money given to her from her job to invest in banks,houses,cars etc. isn't helping the economy at all..

It doesn't work that way as you have to waste capital which is taxed from the market to employ her while her job is inefficient at creating jobs.

[Anonymous No.3680167]

Who's ready for Obama's speech on the 7th in which he has supposedly "fixed" the job market with a yet undisclosed "plan"?

I'm throwing a get together with beers so we can all have a good laugh

[Anonymous No.3680173]

Keynesian economics is why we have the Federal Reserve which sets interest rate, usually lowering them as economic stimulus which causes a massive bubble as there is plenty of cheap credit.

It is also based on running deficits which is what we have been doing for a long time, we are 16 trillion in debt and this was supposed to have helped us, it doesn't. All it means is that future generations are going to have to be taxed to death to make up the difference.

[Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH No.3680176]

>>3680113
Meh. I really need a new copypasta. Let me try this:

Part 1 of 2

When discussing policy, you need to first identify your desired ends. Once those have been identified, you then need to identify possible policies than will acheive those ends. The first question is a moral question. The second question is a question of material fact. See: Hume's is-ought problem:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problem

For me, the purpose of government and economy is a happy, materially wealthy, free population. Economy is merely a means to that end.

Part of that end is private property. I want people to be able to have their own shit that is theirs. This is not an inviolable end. That is, I consider that taxes can be just if they accomplish sufficient good. I also believe as a moral starting point that those who have more have less claim to private property. That is, I respect less the right of private property when you have a dozen cars, a beach house, and a private jet.

So, to that end of a materially wealthy, happy populuation, markets are an indispensable tool. However, to the extent that markets do not achieve these ends, we should choose different policies. Due to the freerider problem, aka the tragedy of the commons (closely related to externalities), these alternate policies must be government regulation.

[Anonymous No.3680178]

>>3680159

>because the belief that self interested agents cannot possibly create wealth or prosperity.

Nah that's not it.
Socialists do not care about wealth or prosperity.
They care about the greater good.
I think the main belief is a community of people would rather act in the democratic greater interest than separated individuals.

But I guess it's true to an extent...
There's still the raison d'état and matters that make the state go after its own citizens.
It's a balance.
Needs a democratic implication in the first place, so there's a need for education to perpetuates socialism. Otherwise it just turns into something else like oligarchism, corporatism etc.

[Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH No.3680180]

>>3680176
Part 2 of 2

So, now that we've established that government regulation is morally justifiable if markets do not achieve our desired ends, let's ask questions of material fact as to when markets would not achieve our desired ends.


Externalities. The best example is vaccines.

People have differing time horizons. Combined with the freerider problem aka tragedy of the commons, closely related to externalities, this can cause undesired outcomes. Examples may include pollution, global warming, peak oil, and so on. Less extreme examples also exist.

Acquiring freely available information is not free. Ex: This is why I support a limited FDA and various other consumer protections. This is also why I support rules against abusive contracts, and I support the first sale doctrine.

People are not fully rational agents. Usually this isn't an issue, but it occasionally pops up.

Cost barriers to entry in some markets are usually not insignificant.

The math to free markets works well with a large number of buyers and sellers. With low numbers of buyers and sellers, the basic econ 101 goodness is no longer applicable.

Extreme wealth disparities allow the rich to disproportionally affect government, which is a threat to the continued existence of a free state.

Unlimited inheritance also moves markets away from the desired ends of a materially wealth happy population. I support very large inheritance taxes on the very rich.

Large research projects. This is merely a combination of above factors, but I want to call it out. We don't have LFTRs today because of the ridiculously large pricetag puts it out of the reach of all but the richest governments. (There's more reasons, but that's an important one.)

[Anonymous No.3680181]

>>3680159
Hi, I'm one of those socialist. In a well regulated system that prevents destructive actions and promotes a competitive environment self interested agents are very able to create wealth and prosperity. Without regulation the methods they use will be destructive if those methods offer the best profit margin. If you ever let one entity or a group of entities to become powerful enough to influence legislation than they will move legislation to in a direction that leads the highest profit margin for itself. We've seen this happen over the last forty years as deregulation has led to a larger and more destructive finical sector.

[Anonymous No.3680187]

>>3680113
>It rests upon the premise that if I collect a bunch of apples and let them go to waste

This is mercantalist which is why we had colonisation and very Keynesian. Basically Keynesian hate the idea of savings, anything put in a bank to them is not going into raising demand, you wonder why we get bubbles and everyone is in debt. They lower interest rates to give no incentive to save. They have the nation and its people debt ridden based on their incompetent contempt for savings and constant interference in the market to stoke demand.

[Anonymous No.3680194]

>>3680181
>>3680181
>Without regulation the methods they use will be destructive if those methods offer the best profit margin.

No regulations are often entries to barriers that give monopolistic advantage, as well as ways to limit liability for business. Regulations are a huge barrier to prosperity for everyone while giving a trumped up feeling of protection for political gain.

[Anonymous No.3680212]

>>3680180
>We don't have LFTRs today because of the ridiculously large pricetag puts it out of the reach of all but the richest governments. (There's more reasons, but that's an important one.)

we don't have it because of anti nuclear stances, not the cost of the innovation.

[resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e No.3680220]

>>3680194

Regulation is kind of vague dont you think? What about anti-trust regulations? Do those create barriers to entry that result in monopolies?

[Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH No.3680222]

>>3680212
There are plenty of people who want to build one, like Kirk Sorensen. The biggest obstacle in his way is money, not anti-nuke regulation.

[Anonymous No.3680225]

How to fix the deficit.

Reduce the tax code to this sentence:

"All sources of income are taxed by x%. If the sum of all sources of income is less than y (Where y is a relatively low value, I'll say 40k for now), then they are taxed z% (Where z is less than x)"

End our current over seas conflicts. Retain military base(s).

Reduce the amount given by federal welfare to an amount that is livable, and livable only. Mandate drug testing for all welfare recipients.

Raise tariffs so that American made products are cheaper than over seas products.

SOMEHOW find a way to make unions shut the fuck up.

[Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH No.3680232]

>>3680225
I support all of that, or something close to it.

[Derpfag No.3680234]

>>3680129
>Okay I agree for the most part. When you say demand for factors of production, are just saying demand for labor and capital etc right? And for the economy to recover there needs to be demand for those things?

Yes directly and by consequence to the last question. Factors of production are land, capital and labor. Or just for short, A, K, L.

Due to scarcity, when the expenditure or income (its the same thing, its GDP) of a country increases, prices increase. Its just a given since there are less resources a.k.a factors of production to work with, in particular, land.

So a factor of production price change is related to a change in GDP almost entirely. After all, the way a country grows is by utilizing the factors of production in increasingly higher and more efficient quantities.

I should add that what happens in a hyperinflationary environment is very high rates of capital utilization above natural levels by government, thus leading to huge price increases for them and thus higher cost to producers. And in a self fulfilling cycle, the expected inflation rate influences the wage that labor is payed. So its like a death spiral: higher demand->higher quantity that needs to be produced->more resources need to be used up->cost of those resources is higher and higher.

Sorry it took so long to reply, its just that it takes time to gather my thoughts.

[Anonymous No.3680239]

>>3679904
>you know who makes most of the manufacturing/research/engineering jobs in America right?
They aren't making enough of them, they need punished.

>You know who makes most of the technological advancements in the world, right?
Scientists/engineers

[Anonymous No.3680242]

>That is, I respect less the right of private property when you have a dozen cars, a beach house, and a private jet

so you justify theft when you perceive someone has more than you, so the Africans can say the same of us and want the wealth of the so called middle class to be redistributed. The fact is people made them wealthy through voluntary means and have benefited from the company themselves. We justify theft after we have handed people our money voluntarily for a product and then turn around and want our money back still keeping the product. You make private property immoral if someone has more than you, you call this moral and justify theft as it itself was moral.

[Anonymous No.3680243]

>>3680194
Yes it's a barrier to those use destructive means to make a profit. Have you ever actually thought about why a barrier can be a good thing? You need to support your argument and explain why you think it would be a bad thing. It is a good thing to have a bar that you must be able to get over to do business. It helps separate the constructive businesses for the destructive.

[Derpfag No.3680244]

>>3680234
>capital utilization above natural levels by government

I earn my name with every post. Its supposed to say factor of production utilization.

[Anonymous No.3680258]

>>3680194
>>3680243
Oh and I forget to mention that regulations that subsidize and protect monopolies often come form an entity having so much power it can lobby the legislation itself. Take the financial industry. They are so powerful that they have gained control of their own regulatory institutions. The system is broken because the regulations were perverted and taken away not because they can't work.

[Liberty !!nQrIRh+JHbs No.3680260]

>>3680225
>>3680232

> mfw the smoot-hawley tarrifs basically put us into the great depression

[resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e No.3680262]

>>3680244

I dont know if I agree. But, Im glad we talked about this. I need to go now, and Im going to continue thinking about this.

Its been nice talking to you.

[Anonymous No.3680265]

>>3680239
>They aren't making enough of them, they need punished.

Wow the level of entitlement is astonishing.

Give me a job or I'll punish you. How about you stop being a waste of space waiting for someone to give you a job.

[Anonymous No.3680275]

>>3680194
>>3680187
>>3680225

This guy is a retard..

> ''Okay guys I got a plan, let's do things that we've already done in the past that didn't really work at all, and do them again, yea it's an awesome plan!!!''

[Anonymous No.3680288]

>>3680258
There are always special interests weather it be corporation or feminists the government is a tool by these people to get what they want at the expense of other people, the government is to blame as it is ultimately law makers who are corrupt and pass the legislation.

Microsoft never lobbied the government until the government pulled an antitrust suit against them, if you don't pay your dues you get fucked.

[Anonymous No.3680294]

>>3680265

Person obviously has never been in a stiuation where he hasn't had a job..

You have no money to pay for groceries, you barely have money to pay for gasoline, drive around looking for a job and none exist.. Now what? What's the plan oh wizard of economic genius?

You would totally die if you were forced to live like half the people in Mexico, looking down on others because you have no fucking idea what you're talking about. Typical republican faggotry, go back to sticking dildo's and penis's up your ass and shut the fuck up this thread is 5 years old. No one gives two shits about your crazy economic theories that never worked, and don't work in the real world.

[Anonymous No.3680299]

>>3680275
>implying we haven't been using keynesianism
>implying it didn't cause the housing crash and dot com bubble through interest rate manipulation and fannie mae and freddie mac
>implying deregulation caused the financial collapse

[Anonymous No.3680301]

>>3680288

Libertarian retard detected.. We need to start killing these people or at least castrating them, they breed like rats.

[Anonymous No.3680303]

>>3680159
On the contrary, it is libertarians who believe that all of society's problems will be solved by having faith in a higher power that is beyond us mortals, which is being opposed by an entity of pure evil that has the goals of causing nothing but suffering and corrupting everything it interacts with. They cite lengthy, hard to read texts and outdated philosophical works as the basis for their beliefs, and are characterized by an obnoxious, smug attitude towards anyone who even slightly disagrees with them. Sounds awfully familiar...

[Anonymous No.3680306]

>>3680275
They have worked in the past. Its deregulation that's proving to be a disaster. Each decade is bringing increasingly harmful economic crisis'. The complete lack of regulation of financial sector in the derivative market almost led the entire world of a cliff. The fact of the matter is, our generation is the first one in American history that is less educated and less wealth than the one before it. Only the rich have prospered in this environment.

[Anonymous No.3680315]

>>3680299

Your little picture is cute, bet you took it from Fox news website to make yourself seem smart.. You so smart, that propaganda ooby dooby doo now go back to sucking cock economics is too complicated for you..

[Anonymous No.3680323]

>>3680294
>No one gives two shits about your crazy economic theories that never worked, and don't work in the real world.

Oh the irony from a leftist who faps over socialism probably. You wanna know what causes unemployment, minimum wage does it for one. It's also mostly people who refuse to work for less than they used to.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2jv1Zae0sgo

[Anonymous No.3680336]

>>3680303
>characterized by an obnoxious, smug attitude towards anyone who even slightly disagrees with them. Sounds awfully familiar...

sounds like leftists

>having faith in a higher power that is beyond us mortals,

You mean the market which is composed of consumers and producers determining trade rather than a godlike figure like the government.

[Anonymous No.3680348]

>>3680315
>HUURR DURR MUST BE FAUX NEWS HURP
>ANYTHING THAT IS AGAINST MY RETARDED WORLD VIEW IS FAUX NEWS KILL ALL THE HIVEMIND NAZIS WHO THINK DIFFERENLTY FROM ME HURP

[Anonymous No.3680354]

You wanna know the cause of unemployment? Jee dude, do tell?? Oh it's the government.. Oooooo hoogyboogy booooooogy boo.. Oh noooooooez not the government, not the big ol gov, don't let them steal my soul..


That's what you've been saying all night and you sound retarded.. You have no solutions except to say ''let companies who's only motive is profit take over'', implying that we haven't already done that in the past.. Why the fuck do you think we have regulations to begin with??????? Oh that's right ''boogyman gov. hoogy boogy boo'' no dumbass it's because limitless profit motivates people to do unethical things such as IDK put toxic lead in your meat supply, or sell you a car that is guaranteed to break down in 2 months. You're so dumb, you can't possibly be in college because you're that stupid.

[Anonymous No.3680360]

>>3679929
>Basically, cutting taxes on the rich only helps the rich. We had our best times when the taxes were MUCH higher than now.

You mean during the great depression when we had our food rationed by glorious commisar Franklin Deleanor

[Anonymous No.3680371]

>>3680348

Fox news is a bunch of propaganda who's leader is probably going to jail on account of allowing his news agents to infiltrate and hack thousands of phones in the U.K. anyone who watches that trash is retarded. It's not because I disagree with you, it's because I know the difference between real news and propaganda and you don't because well you're stupid bro.. It's not your fault.. It's uncureable but if you chop your balls off your stupid wont spread to the rest of the world

[Liberty !!nQrIRh+JHbs No.3680376]

>>3680354

There are tons of cases of food poisoning every year. This is because the gubbmint fails at the job they claimed they could do.

The last time black unemployment was below white unemployment was the year before the first minimum wage law was passed.

[Anonymous No.3680382]

>>3680354
>>3680354
>profit motivates people to do unethical things such as IDK put toxic lead in your meat supply

Really there is a way to profit from putting toxic metal in peoples food?

>or sell you a car that is guaranteed to break down in 2 months.

DERP DERP IM A FUCKING RETARD WHO BELIEVE CONSUMERS ARE SO RETARDED THAT THEY'LL BUY ANY PIECE OF SHIT THAT WILL BREAK DOWN OR KILL THEM. THE PROFIT MOTIVE IS TOTALLY ONE SIDED AND THE CONSUMER IS A BENEVOLENT ALTRUIST WHO IS TOTALLY NOT GREEDY AND WANT TO FUCK THE PRODUCER OVER AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE.

[Anonymous No.3680390]

>>3680371
HURP DURP EVERYTHING THAT YOU BELIEVE IS PROPOGANDA I'M NOT TOTALLY A FUCKING BRAINWASHED REATRD ONLY RACHEL MADDOW TELLS THE TRUFS.

[Anonymous No.3680401]

Some fun parody:

>"We want to turn your bridges into rubble, but if we claimed credit for making them collapse, nobody would ever believe us."

>"We'd really just be doing you a favor because then you'd actually have to rebuild them," al-Zawahiri added.

>Throughout the threatening video, the terrorist leader questioned the priorities of American politicians, asking why they would refuse to fund engineering projects that would create jobs, bombing opportunities, and new ways for the U.S. compete globally.

>"It's ridiculous that the Netherlands, the world's 16th-ranked economy, is continuously investing in its infrastructure, while the No. 1 economy simply refuses to enter the 21st century," said al-Zawahiri, adding that Americans should be ashamed of having only one operational high-speed rail line, considering the Dutch have 120.

>He also revealed the terrorist organization had wasted six months planning to take down Amtrak's regional operations before realizing that with its constant delays and malfunctions, the government-owned passenger train service "basically terrorizes itself."

http://www.theonion.com/articles/alqaeda-claims-us-mass-transportation-infrastructu,21008/

[Anonymous No.3680405]

>>3680382
whoa whoa whoa bro, tone down the butthurt

oh and
>implying consumers aren't retarded

[Anonymous No.3680415]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=48Gfzgxh3ZQ

Oh look its that retard Ron Paul predicting the collapse of the housing market years before his keynesian counterparts, man doesn't he know the FED and Fannie Mae are totally perfect government institutions that don't operate on greed and therefore infallible.

[Liberty !!nQrIRh+JHbs No.3680420]

>>3680401

> mfw reaganomics/trickle down is not an actual economic theory ever created by an economist ever
> mfw it is a politically created fake theory by democrats

[Anonymous No.3680421]

>>3680405
>Call himself a retard

I agree

iamtheonlyconsciouspersoninaworldofsheep.jpg

[Anonymous No.3680430]

Lol look at the witty bitty conservafag, liberfag.. Bending over backwards taking it up the butt by corporations ''I love you corporations, I love you big banks, you guys are a good man now can you put your penis up my ass???''

''I love you Enron, you know that whole scheme where you essentially wanted to crash our economy by shortselling, that's not your fault, it's the gov.''

''I love you B.P that whole thing where you were incompetent in the gulf of Mexico and had shoddy building, that's just god hugging the sea, those sea critters will get used to all the oil eventually, please spill oil in my backyard again and hump me in the ass more''

''You know De Beers, those black people in africa? All those wars you started because you wanted to hog the diamond trade, I love you man forget those things, please hump me in the ass and cum on my face..''

''You know those wars in Iran you started Exxon mobile, where you put a military dictator in power?? You know the Shah, he was a good guy really he was.. I love you please cum on my face I love your big black penis''

[Anonymous No.3680431]

>>3680323
>faps over socialism

Oh and thats the domain of the "leftist" ?

The majority of "right" states have stopped having the government as their #1 largest employer?
The majority of "Right" states have begun to pay the same ammount or more into the federal governemnt then they recieve from it?

The majority of "right" politicians have went ahead and dismantled farm subsidies, oil subsidies, no-bid government contracts, industrial purchase quota pledging, liquid incentive programs, ect, ect ect?

Socialism is a buzzword to you and you do not understand what it means, or how western civilization operates. This is apparent when you speak of socialism in a partisan fasion.

Stop being a parrot, go to a library.
You are a socialist. You are either a socialist, or you live in the woods. There is no middle ground. And we can never begin to free ourselves from it or even guide socialism responsibly in our civilization when loud yet ignorant people such as yourself simply tow a line and obscure the truth behind a wall of nonsense and half truths.

[Anonymous No.3680433]

>>3680405
THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD REGULATE WHAT I CONSUME, THEY KNOW BETTER THAN I.

[Anonymous No.3680445]

>>3680401
Amtrack runs on private lines, and the privates have made a career out of not properly maintaining their right of ways. Not because they're stupid, mind you, but because they are cheap bastards.
I used to work for BNSF and Central Illinois and I know this for a fact. It's cheaper to clean up an accident than it is to maintain thousands and thousands of miles of rail. Sad but true.

[Anonymous No.3680448]

>>3680382
The consumer never has perfect knowledge and often times is at a disadvantaged side of a trade with a producer. These information asymmetries are prevalent throughout car sales, financial services, realtors, stock brokers, and loan originators.

Read up on Stiglitz if you are interested in this.

[Anonymous No.3680459]

>>3680225
>Raise tariffs so that American made products are cheaper than over seas products.

So I have to pay more to have better quality products solely because they weren't made here?

[Anonymous No.3680468]

>>3680445

>It's cheaper to clean up an accident than it is to maintain thousands and thousands of miles of rail. Sad but true.

Well I guess the Invisible Hand of the Free Market's ways are inscrutable.

[Anonymous No.3680471]

>>3680431
>implying I give to fucks about republican which are just leftists anyway with their views on government involvement abroad, socially, and many time economically.

[Anonymous No.3680474]

>>3680433
>>3680421
>implying what I said isn't correct

[Anonymous No.3680477]

>>3680382
Because it's totally fair to compare an individual consumer, who does not always act rationally and cannot justify spending a significant amount of resources to "fuck over the producer", to a business, which essentially has the sole goal of fucking over the consumer as much as possible (providing less value for more cost).

I sense a great deal of anger in your posting, by the way.

[Anonymous No.3680478]

>>3680471

It's official he's a crazy coot using the internet as his soap box

[Anonymous No.3680480]

>>3680459
It's actually a pretty good idea.

It would make foreign products less competitive than the ones produced near you, and it would reduce pollution involved in transport and facilitate the quality controls...

Who hasn't unwillingly bought counterfeited products before?

[Anonymous No.3680494]

>>3680433
To be honest, you look pretty dumb to me.

[Liberty !!nQrIRh+JHbs No.3680497]

>>3680480

Tariffs simply raise the price of american goods. Tariffs are simply a tax on the consumer that go directly to the corporations.

[Anonymous No.3680501]

>>3680265
Not entitlement.

If their role in society is to produce jobs and they aren't making enough of them they aren't fulfilling their role in society. If I don't fulfill my role in society (to work) then I'll most certainly be punished for it. (seizure of property specifically comes to mind)

[Anonymous No.3680502]

>>3680471
Oh? And then what "right" are you refering to that shuns socialism?

Keep in mind that you are on the internet. You probably dont understand the humor in that. But its funny.

[Anonymous No.3680504]

>>3680376
>because the gubbmint fails at the job they claimed they could do.

The "government" is not failing. The assholes that Reagan and his buddies seeded the various departments with are do-nothings who are revolving door representatives of the corporations and industries they are supposed to regulate.

They shuffle paper, fire effective people, jail whistelblowers, hound decent people out of government service and just generally give government employees a bad name. On purpose.

Norquist, Paul, Reagan and this Texas asshole Rick Perry are on a mission to replace effective government with a skeleton, libertarian corporate state, except for the Dominionists who want to replace the Republic with a Christin Dominionist theocracy..

[Anonymous No.3680508]

>>3680448
The consumer will never have perfect information and neither will the producer ever have perfect information and the government won't even have relatively good information as it is totally blind to market forces when it monopolizes something. Don't waste time in useless pipe dreams.

HURP DURP WE DON'T HAVE ALL TRANSITIONAL FOSSILS THEREFORE GOD EXISTS HERP.

[Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH No.3680524]

>>3680508
You are wrong.

In /b/-speak: even with cruise control, you still have to steer.

[Liberty !!nQrIRh+JHbs No.3680527]

>>3680504

> the problem isn't that the government is not doing what they said they would do, but that people that are dead stop them from doing it right now
> mfw you also think the gubbmint is effective

[Anonymous No.3680539]

>>3680497
>. Tariffs are simply a tax on the consumer that go directly to the corporations.

You idiot. Tariffs go to the Treasury department. Tariffs, in fact, were one of the main sources of income for the US gov't before the income tax was instituted.

[Anonymous No.3680543]

>>3680497

But if you tax imported products, then the products made near you do not get taxed, right?

So the products made near you get comparatively less expensive, and more competitive.

So it gets less beneficial to export jobs, because producing elsewhere would be less profitable, right?

If you're against this, I think stating the origin of the products would be a first step (and I mean the origin of everything in the product, that interacted with it).

And another way would be to subsidize consumer checks to buy products made close to the consumers.
Like those food stamps a lot of Americans rely on to survive...

[Anonymous No.3680554]

>>3680504
>hound decent people out of government service and just generally give government employees a bad name. On purpose.

This is what retards actually believe. There is a giant conspiracy to make government people to look bad. The government never fails bro, it never has never it was all a bunch of evil people who wanted to get rich the hard way through competition rather than by using the government to get rich. If the government doesn't regulate business then we will all die.

>libertarian corporate state
Except that government involvment is the corporate state, the state gives the corporations special advantages over each other reducing competition, distorting markets which causes the problems in the first place.

>except for the Dominionists who want to replace the Republic with a Christin Dominionist theocracy.

OH GO I'M A FUCKING RETARD.

[Anonymous No.3680558]

>>3680508
The government has the power to legislate laws requiring information be public, through oversight of industry, or through regulation of practices as in the case of the Federal Meat Inspection Act. Individual consumers do not have these kinds of abilities.

Also, your flagrant use of immature mockery isn't helping your argument at all.

[Anonymous No.3680569]

>>3680527

You idiot. You don't even know what "effective" is supposed to mean when it comes to this particular government (and there are governments all over the planet, some of thedmactually are responsive to their citizens)

The Constitution was specifically designed to slow down the political process so that things didn't get done willy-nilly or having people rushing to judgment, as you are so fond of doing..

[Anonymous No.3680580]

>>3680543
You add the tax so it matches the price of goods produced in your country, it does not cheapen the cost of goods it forces the consumer to over pay for goods, the benefits of the jobs would be lost right there.

>And another way would be to subsidize consumer checks to buy products made close to the consumers.

but you have to tax someone to subsidize this and that means you are taking money away from local businesses and people to buy them.

[Anonymous No.3680591]

>>3680554

>There is a giant conspiracy to make government people to look bad.

Well I suggest you listen to G. W. Bush, former US President and then rething whether or not some people are intentionally trying to make the US government look bad.

[Liberty !!nQrIRh+JHbs No.3680608]

>>3680539

> thinking the american goods that go up in value go to the gubbmint

>>3680591

hopenchange hussein is

[Anonymous No.3680623]

>>3680554
Bush's Neo-Conservatives are neither neo, or conservative. They are, in fact revolutionaries trying to bring down the Republic,.

Think Unitary Executive, Cheney claiming that the Vice Presidency was not part of the Executive, warrantless domestic spying, torture, assassination of US citizens by Presidential fiat.

What fucking planet have you been living on?

[Anonymous No.3680629]

GUBBMENT EVUL TAX RICHIES HURF HURf DURF

not rich peoples fault you're a failure at life

[Anonymous No.3680632]

>>3680558
Yes and having food labels has really stopped people from being fat, then again look at Europe no such thing and yet they are nice and thing. Remember when cigarettes were supposed to be phased out by government because they found out they caused cancer, OOPS LOL NO ONE GAVE A FUCK.

>Federal Meat Inspection Act.
The government doesn't inspect every piece of meat

>Individual consumers do not have these kinds of abilities.

Seems to work for every other industry.

[Anonymous No.3680641]

>>3680623
>They are, in fact revolutionaries trying to bring down the Republic,.

9/11 was an inside job.

[Anonymous No.3680650]

>>3680580

>You add the tax so it matches the price of goods produced in your country, it does not cheapen the cost of goods it forces the consumer to over pay for goods, the benefits of the jobs would be lost right there.

There are two benefits:

-You bring back jobs because goods get either the same price (which would be silly) or cheaper (with careful tax adjustements) with a better quality thanks to quality control and superior technology/innovation

-You get taxmoney from imported goods

>overpay for goods

You're just paying the fair price. Things have a price, things that aren't produced by Asian children are more expensive.

[Anonymous No.3680652]

If America wants to regain its previous levels of manufacturing the responsibility ultimately rests upon the American consumer in my opinion.

This might not be a popular viewpoint to hold but from my perspective, it is the only one I can hold while remaining completely honest to myself.

It really was not too long ago that foreign manufactured goods were an oddity. The idea of buying a Japaneese television or a car was not even something we considered, they were viewed as garbage. And they were, they absolutely were.

I was born in the late 40's, and I watched the attitude of the consumer change, especially when OPEC had its power play and we all chose to save a few dollars rather then support our own economy. People talk about how the corporations do not hold the best interests of America, well neither did we the people.

Its hard to explain to somebody younger the extent to which we accepted inferior products to save money. Little things that you might not even consider, such as bowls and clothes and toys and thousands of other household goods are shoddy today compared to the quality that was once uniform. And we all had a hand in this transition. Myself included.

You as well, although your options for purchasing are far lower then mine once were in regards to promoting domestic consumption.

There is no easy answer.

There are many other factors of course, such as the fluctuating support of and by organized labour, and regulations that are often redundant and do not address realities beyond the next election cycle, this is not soley the fault of the consumer, but we happily helped to weave the noose and placed it upon ourselves with our choices.

[Anonymous No.3680653]

>>3680608
>> thinking the american goods that go up in value go to the gubbmint

Not you've not only demonstrated your idiocy, but revealed yourself as a liar as well when you deliberately distorting what I said.

Tariffs are taxes paid to the Treasury, liar.

Choke on a lightly salted bag o'dicks, liar.

[Anonymous No.3680661]

http://www.vancouversun.com/life/holiday-guide/Kinder+Surprises+Banned/2353187/story.html

Government trying to protect you from profit making agents.

[Anonymous No.3680668]

>>3678444

10 million 60K a year jobs out of the blue will do one of two things:

1) If you require the hiree to be currently unemployed: You just butt-fucked the poor.

Why?

These jobs are about 3-5x better paying than most jobs the poor can get. And the poor--with only a High School diploma or GED (if that) are the ones predominately unemployed. So, you hire the unemployed people, most of which can't seem to hold a job for long anyway, and they work... until they get fired for cause.

This opens the job again, and you hire umemployed again...

And what you've created is a cycle of have-have-not and a desireable job that no other low-income employer can compete with...

2) If these are competitive jobs:

You butt-fuck the poor because these jobs get filled by the (former) middle class who are currently holding lower-level jobs. This opens lower level jobs and the poorer people back-fill...

...until the funding ends and now, guess what? They're competing for their own jobs against better qualified people.

Oh, by the way, the pull back troops idea is how we ended up in WWII and Korea because of treaty obligations. When the potential other side sees a move it interprets as "America doesn't want to fight", they get cocky at which point all those "savings" go poof winning the next fucking war.

The only times you could argue we didn't go to war pretty quickly following a draw down turns out to be examples of the opposite. Like in the end of the Cold War (expansion --> "won" "war") and the Gulf War I-->Iraq Invasion interlude. (War following large forces/activities in a region.)

[Liberty !!nQrIRh+JHbs No.3680673]

>>3680653

The tariffs let american companies raise their prices. The raised prices are a tax on a consumer.

[Anonymous No.3680694]

>>3680652
The problem stems from America having the world reserve currency and having an overinflated value for the dollar. Not a reason to inflate the money supply as that will cause a bubble.

[Anonymous No.3680711]

>>3680632

>Europe

>banned GM food and crops
>started banning phthalates in plastics
>banned bacterially contaminated seeds from Egypt after the recent epidemic

Yeah EU is useless.
Enjoy not being able to grow wild, non-GM crops.

[Anonymous No.3680712]

>wants government to create jobs
>probably hate the military industrial complex which is just that

[Anonymous No.3680720]

Oh, and most people don't realize taxes do two things:

1) Gather money.

2) (Fiscally) influence behavior.

In general, you can only successfully do ONE at a time. When you try to do both, you fail.

Ergo: Huge companies paying little/no taxes BECAUSE THEY ARE DOING WHAT THE CONGRESS WANTED THEM TO DO! Like spend on green energy.

That's what a fucking loophole is: A way taxes are intended to influence behavior.

Oh, and while giving the rich tax breaks primarily helps only the rich, taxing the shit out of them tends to hurt everyone because they tend to leave, their money leaves, or they simply add the additional costs into how they make their money. If they own your local pizza place, plan on seeing your drinks go from $1 to $2.50 and your added toppings double in price.

[Anonymous No.3680725]

>>3680711
Actually we can grow both, but you can't.

[Anonymous No.3680735]

>>3680712
jobs with a purpose
not jobs that kill innocents or hire people to do nothing in foreign countries. Japan, Germany

[Anonymous No.3680745]

>>3680720
Interesting. So taxing millionaires at 40 to 50% will cause pizza to more than double in price.

That sounds more like inflation, which is the current "solution" to lack of tax revenue.

[Anonymous No.3680749]

>>3680720
>>they tend to leave, their money leaves
nice myth, but it isn't true. Majority of rich people won't move out of their states, let alone the country. They have family and friends here and usually the government restricts money that can leave the country. Well, when congress isn't bought

[Anonymous No.3680752]

>>3680720
whats even worse is subsidies allow companies to not innovate as one specific sector gets an advantage over another. As far as incentives for green tech all they really need to do is end subsidies for oil which will raise the price and create demand and end subsidies for greentech as this will force the companies to innovate to the point were costs are comparable to oil and people aren't wasting excessive money in hidden costs for green tech.

[Anonymous No.3680763]

>>3680725

Actually, we can grow GM crops.
In controlled labs.

You can't grow anything without airborne contamination by GM crops.

[Anonymous No.3680770]

>>3680720

>If they own your local pizza place, plan on seeing your drinks go from $1 to $2.50 and your added toppings double in price.

I'll go to the other local pizza place that isn't owned by a fatcat, thank you very much.

[Anonymous No.3680784]

>>3680735
They are jobs with no purpose as there is no demand for what they are making. China is building whole cities that lie empty constantly under this same principle. Also the military industrial complex is not about killing people, more like creating new weapons systems, still useless but it functions to employ people as you people wish.

[Anonymous No.3680785]

>>3680745

Actually, depends on whether the money a rich person gets is tied to a location or not. The more the money is tied to a location--say, a particular place of business or a particular source of resources like a mine--the more the taxes get passed through. The more the source of money is "virtual" or can be moved, the more likely it is to be moved legally or actually offshore or wherever the tax rate is less.

Many rich people do not behave (financially) by emotional rules, they default to the legal and/or economic experts and make decisions much more rationally. This means what may not make sense to us but shows up as a lower tax bill and more money in pocket is more likely what they'll do...

[Anonymous No.3680790]

>>3680752

Oil doesn't need subsidizing.
The market subsidize it right now.
You subsidize it with your car.

We're still using a century old technology to go around for fuck's sake!
Maybe we should stop saying "DIG DEEEEEEEPER HURP DURP" and start thinking about something else?

[Anonymous No.3680797]

>>3680770

Which works until they get successful enough to expand elsewhere or to franchise out.

Or until they start getting soaked for the added taxes on their suppliers' side.

[Anonymous No.3680809]

>>3680650
You have not quantified the benefit of the "higher" quality food. For example: you can buy 2 million units of cheap food and risk a 10% of defective units, or 1 million with a 0% risk of defect for the same price. The fist one actually allows you to have a much larger population, thus economy, than the second option. I am aware this example depends on what is the "defect" and what time frame we are considering in the "defect" rate, but it is easy to see that if screening is to be implemented we have to decide what is of more value to us, peace of mind and the moral high ground or a larger more efficient economy.

[Anonymous No.3680810]

>>3680749

That's what corporations and trusts are for. You put the money there, it moves off shore, and the only part you're liable for here is what you pay yourself.

Like I said, legally, virtually, or actually...

[Anonymous No.3680819]

>>3680749
Things are taxed directly, the only way that they can dodge taxes is through tax credits when income tax time comes, because income taxes are filed only because tax credits exist, which is how they apply tax credits.

[Anonymous No.3680821]

>>3680784
>>no demand for transportation, internet
ok

[Anonymous No.3680826]

>>3680790
Thanks for not reading my post.

[Anonymous No.3680829]

>>3680797

Because there's no historical record of a business that has been successful enough to feed and provide for its owners without being successful enough or have a large enough audience to bud, right?

And all businesses go down because of the evil gubbermints keeping them down, am I right?

Really the only thing that's keeping the wealth inside the country is the rich people, not the people's work.

And this system is the best in the world, especially in the domain of the sciences (remember those?), where people from other countries come to get the jobs in the rich labs while people from the country aren't educated and smart enough to work there?

[Anonymous No.3680835]

>>3680809

How is that logic working for Mexico?

Quit being stupid.. It's like stupid just flows naturally from you like a waterfall or some shit, how does that work?

[Anonymous No.3680847]

>>3680650
>You're just paying the fair price. Things have a price, things that aren't produced by Asian children are more expensive.

actually no you don't, and what you end up doing is taking jobs away from even more desperate people than you. They get paid less because they have less capital reserves as a whole which build up over time until they become wealthy and begin out sourcing themselves.

[Anonymous No.3680854]

>>3680735

Sounds good, but...

1) Those "doing nothing" people in Japan and Germany are one reason why you've had some level of continuous peaceful cooperation between the US (and the rest of the world) and the two nations that ran up the last World War (in the case of Germany, the last two) for the last 65 or so years. Essentially, you have positive, cooperative diplomatic and military cooperation.

Compare that to the rest of the world: Even Russia and China have almost had shooting wars in spite of being "allies" for a long time. Don't even start with Africa or most of Southeast Asia...

2) National defense is one of the few Constitutionally mandated requirements for the Federal Government. Not even Federal Law enforcement (outside the modern Coast Guard's function) is really in there.

Additionally, the more money you use to fund these things, the more money you pull out of the economy to fund things like infrastructure.

[Anonymous No.3680857]

>>3680835
I have not made any judgement as to which side should be used, I am just pointing out that "fairness" and other ideals sometimes come at a economic cost. Chill bro, I am not trying to breach the is-ought gap.

[Anonymous No.3680860]

>>3680785
So how will regulatory arbitrage in the financial markets affect the price of pizza? The ingredients in pizza are primarily tied to American agriculture. And the physical store to sell pizza obviously needs to be in America.

Even Warren Buffett remarked:

"People invest to make money, and potential taxes have never scared them off"

Then you also have America's greatest economic expansion, following WW2, with taxation on the richest at 90%. Most of that growth was domestic and continued far beyond the time that Europe had rebuilt. Seems like taxation and public reinvestment into infrastructure and scientific research can be very beneficial for the economy and society at large.

[Anonymous No.3680876]

>>3680829

Oh, there are some small businesses, but the problem is--when faced with a larger competitor--they often lack the deep pockets to compete. The only real exceptions are niche companies or companies based on custom work and reputation.

Even then, to pay the bills, they often get bought out by bigger companies and the original owner kept as a subcontractor.

[Anonymous No.3680900]

>>3680860
because we ended the FDR policies and because the rest of the world had its infrastructure destroyed by the war. Not only that but we were coming off the great depression.

Also warren buffet is a faggot.

[Anonymous No.3680918]

>>3680826

Your post meant that you should end the subsidies on green energy. I disagree.

If you publicly invests in green energy (through subsidies), then you're helping innovation.
You just need to do it the right way.

Otherwise people will keep looking for ways to dig deeper because this is PROFITABLE.
States are able to do things that aren't profitable on the short term, but are profitable on the long term.
Like building infrastructure.
See:
>Amtrack runs on private lines, and the privates have made a career out of not properly maintaining their right of ways. Not because they're stupid, mind you, but because they are cheap bastards.
I used to work for BNSF and Central Illinois and I know this for a fact. It's cheaper to clean up an accident than it is to maintain thousands and thousands of miles of rail. Sad but true.

>>3680847
Corporations are exploiting the 3rd world.
Preventing workers from get work rights, getting into unions, corrupting the politicians etc.
Those people should develop on their own, possibly using our technologies and knowledges, not slave themselves making our jeans for pences.

[Anonymous No.3680927]

>>3680918
>I used to work for BNSF and Central Illinois and I know this for a fact. It's cheaper to clean up an accident than it is to maintain thousands and thousands of miles of rail. Sad but true.

except no one will ride the train if it crashes consistently, so this train of logic is absolutely retarded. In the end you would have to maintain the track anyway as you would have to fix it after the crash.

[Anonymous No.3680939]

>>3680900
Actually all of FDR's financial regulations such as the Glass Steagall Act and Securities and Exchange Commission were effective throughout the Post-war Economic Expansion. It was not until the Reagan years that GDP growth fell from 4% in the 50s and 5% in the 60s down to only 2% during the 80s. Inequality also grew since the Reagan years and financial instability has mired the economy ever since deregulation. Especially since the repeal of the Glass Steagall Act in the late 90s.

[Anonymous No.3680948]

I haven't read this entire thread, but I'd like to share some thoughtful quotes I've selected which demonstrate /sci/'s level of economic erudition:

>I dont think there is a single thing the government can do to promote economic growth. The government can improve itself by not spending so much and cutting removing programs like the DoD, medicare and social security.

>Inflation is caused by increasing prices. The way prices increase is increasing cost of the factors of production: land, labor, capital

>Basically, cutting taxes on the rich only helps the rich. We had our best times when the taxes were MUCH higher than now.

>It is also based on running deficits which is what we have been doing for a long time, we are 16 trillion in debt and this was supposed to have helped us, it doesn't. All it means is that future generations are going to have to be taxed to death to make up the difference.

>Tariffs are simply a tax on the consumer that go directly to the corporations.

[Anonymous No.3680954]

>>3680918
They aren't being exploited, they benefit from the jobs even when they get paid pennies they are better off than they used to be, even if they develop on their own they'll make pennies and still work in shit conditions, it will be far slower as they would need to raise capital on their own to build the factories. Life was always harder before it was easier.

[Anonymous No.3680963]

>>3680927
Planes crash too you know.

Yet you still take planes.
Because there are thousands of planes and only a few of them crash.
It's a question of scale. If you have minor crashes for silly reasons, it might be more economically profitable not to fix the tracks.

Just like BP managed to make profits despite causing a giant natural disaster, you know?

[Anonymous No.3680974]

>>3680918
>Otherwise people will keep looking for ways to dig deeper because this is PROFITABLE.

It isn't the price to get oil is consistently going higher.

[Anonymous No.3681003]

>>3680954

Are you saying that:

-being paid pennies
-getting all natural resources taken away
-having to import food (because you're too busy slaving yourself at making clothes or mining some minerals instead of farming)
-suffering from rampant corruption and political instability (because the corporations' job needs some good "friends")
-smart people leaving the country as soon as possible because no opportunity exists (in education for example) for them and companies are leeching them

is an actual improvement for a people?

>it will be far slower as they would need to raise capital on their own to build the factories.

Do you really think, say African people, would need factories?
If they don't have to import and only produce for them, they do not need to meet the same criteria of qualities/regulation as for the 1st world country, so investing and building and producing should actually be QUICKER than it is elsewhere (why do you think the corporations want to work there in the first place?).

It might be more difficult to have internal initiaves like those because of the system entirely funded by corporations and greedy foreigners.

[Anonymous No.3681007]

>>3680963
That's more due to BP being protected from liability, it isn't exactly profitable to lose a fuckton of oil into the ocean which you could have sold.

[Anonymous No.3681027]

>>3680939
Disparity is a useless metric, you can all be equal and poor as fuck. What matters is that everyone is better off and that is what happens.

[Anonymous No.3681067]

>>3681003
Yes it is if you are a subsistence farmer whose daughters suck dick for money.


>Do you really think, say African people, would need factories?

yes

>It might be more difficult to have internal initiaves like those because of the system entirely funded by corporations and greedy foreigners.

And you think the Africans are not greedy, no just to dumb to allow businesses into their countries. You think you can start an internal initiative to build factories in Africa when they haven't done so on their own in thousands of years.

-being paid more than you ever have
-actually reaping the benefits of your resources rather than leaving them in the gorund
-having to import food because food aid puts farmers out of business
-suffering from rampant corruption and political instability caused by foreign aid keeping defunct governments in power
-smart people leaving the country as soon as possible because no opportunity exists, so we should give them even less opportunity by barring business from entering the country.

[Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH No.3681087]

>>3680652
Collective action problem, aka tragedy of the commons, aka the freerider problem.

It can only be done through governmental regulation.