Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: 5 trillion dollars more in debt and we still don't have economic recovery

Posted 2 years ago on May 17, 2012, 10:37 p.m. EST by SteveKJR1 (8)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Regardless of weather it's the republicans or the democrats fault, we have spent over 5 trillion dollars since Obama took offfice. So, with that being said, why hasn't the economy improved?

This just goest to show that everyone who thinks it's the job of the government is to create jobs during economic depression are flat wrong.

We are still over 8% dropping from 9% for the last 4 years. The government has spent this country into submission and we are still in a depression.

You can boast of the jobs that were created but that didn't put a dent into the amount of people out of work. The poverty rate has increased dramatically and people still want the government to increase taxes onthe wealthy.

This is insane - the revenues coming into the government has fallen off and they don't even have enough money to bail out the post office.

So, do you really think more "government spending", more "government job creations" are going to stimulate the economy? I don't think so.

It's the job of "business" to create jobs. Until people get it into their mind that that's what drives the economy, two, three or four trillion dollars more won't mean a thing - except burden our future generations who wil have to pay for it.

94 Comments

94 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 6 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 2 years ago

Regardless of weather it's the republicans or the democrats fault, we have spent over 5 trillion dollars since Obama took offfice. So, with that being said, why hasn't the economy improved?

Because in typical fashion the money was dispersed from the top down instead of giving to the bottom first, those who were strapped with the most debt.

When the lower income groups have money, they buy goods, that stimulates the economy. The top having money does nothing to stimulate the economy. When jobs increase for the lower groups we grow as a whole.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (34975) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Thank you another sane voice understanding and speaking TRUTH.

[-] 5 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 2 years ago

You're welcome, and another truth... the top having money doesn't create jobs. Demand for goods cause companies to hire more, and you can only have demand when people are buying, and people only buy when they have money not debt.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (34975) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

TRUTH.

Kinda makes a person wonder what the greedy assholes are thinking when they starve their consumers.

Insanity?

[-] 2 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 2 years ago

The mulitnationals will make money selling overseas and hire cheap overseas for production. It's Europe and the US that is in real trouble.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (34975) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Tariff the outsourcing bastards make it more expensive to outsource than to operate from home - that is part of the rightful job of government - in protecting their Country/People.

This is part of what we push for the people to recognize understand and support.

[-] -2 points by SteveKJR (-497) 2 years ago

Not to be confrontational but let me ask you. You made the statement that "the top having money doesn't create jobs". Then you go on to say "demand cause companies to hire more, and you can only have demand when people are buying.

Whom are those you speak of who are part of the "top"? Are they millionaires, billionaires where is the line drawn.

The reason I ask is because there are companies out there worth millions if not billions who provide jobs to people. Or are you referring to companies who loan out money to borrowers?

[-] 2 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 2 years ago

The reason I ask is because there are companies out there worth millions if not billions who provide jobs to people.

Companies only provide jobs when their product sells... when there is demand, regardless of the size of the company. They don't hire out of good will no matter how much money they have.

Giving companies money as in the bailouts only allowed the companies to clear out their corporate debts. Hiring didn't happen after that. Why? Because there was no demand. The private citizen still had debt and no cash to spend to create demand.

Had the money been spent in real job creation, more people would have been employed, earned cash, helped cleared their debts and had more money to buy goods, which stimulates the economy.

Or are you referring to companies who loan out money to borrowers?

Companies that loan out money to borrowers only create more private debt.

[-] 0 points by SteveKJR (-497) 2 years ago

You are right, companies do provide jobs when their porduct sells. When their product doesn't sell they either downsize or go out of business.

And you are right, they don't hire out of good will they hire based on "business decisions" regardless of how much money they have.

Now with regard to "giving companies money as in bailouts that only allowed the companies to clear out their corporate debts".

From what I have read banks were given money to prop them up and they were required to return it. GM on the other hand was forced to sell stocks to the government and the government is still owed millions because the stock has yet to rise to where it was when the stocks were purchased.

Now with regard to "spending money for real job creation" - lots of money was handed over to the states. What they did was prop up their government jobs and very little of that money went to private sector jobs.

Sure there were highway projects but the vast majority of those have ended and the money ran out to keep the government eployees employed.

So, they had to be laid off.

So, as you can see, the government "pissed away billions" by giving money away to the states letting them decide where the money was to be used.

The private business sector is struggling because of all the people who went out on a "buying spree" and bought anything, everything going into debt up to their eyeballs.

As a result those people are broke, without a job, have no money, lost everyting because of their stupidity and in return that had an enormous effect on people's retirement funds.

Just in case you don't know - it's going to take another 10 years to maybe get this country back to where it was prior to 2008. Along with that the federal government has to stop spending like there is no tomorrow.

The economy is driven by the consumer and small business - not big business as you may think. 75% of the businesses in the US are small business. 68% of the economy is driven by the consumer.

So, if people aren't wise enough to get their act together thinking that they are owed everything and it's the governments job to give it to them, this country will never recover.

It all goes back to learning how to be "independent" instead of being "dependent". And thinking that a college degree gives a person a right to become wealthy within 5 years after they graduate is insane.

It takes time to build job skills along with wealth. It doesn't happen overnight like most people would like to think. It takes time - 15 or maybe 20 years to build both.

Instant gratification is the problem not the cure.

[-] 1 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 2 years ago

From what I have read banks were given money to prop them up and they were required to return it. GM on the other hand was forced to sell stocks to the government and the government is still owed millions because the stock has yet to rise to where it was when the stocks were purchased. Now with regard to "spending money for real job creation" - lots of money was handed over to the states. What they did was prop up their government jobs and very little of that money went to private sector jobs.

Banks were also required to give stock as collateral, along with AIG, GM and others. They had the option of repaying in cash, thus redeeming the stock, or waiting until the stock prices rose enough for the govt to make a profit from selling the stock.

Money was indeed given to the state governments, with a few refusing to even take the money, even though they admitted that they needed it.

So, as you can see, the government "pissed away billions" by giving money away to the states letting them decide where the money was to be used.

The state governments 'pissed away' billions of dollars and blew a good opportunity. But that is the nature of states rights, they have the option to do as they see fit.

I agree that the Federal Govt gave in to a bad plan. I would much rather have seen the Fed Govt take action in much the same way that FDR's New Deal worked.

The private business sector is struggling because of all the people who went out on a "buying spree" and bought anything, everything going into debt up to their eyeballs. As a result those people are broke, without a job, have no money, lost everyting because of their stupidity and in return that had an enormous effect on people's retirement funds.

There has been a sustained focused attack on personal savings since the late 1970's by the financial sector. At one time Predatory Laws existed in every state to keep the banks at bay....but the banks had them overturned, the very beginnings of banking deregulation.

When the credit card (which should be named the debt card) first came out very few knew how they operated or what the consequences of using them where. That didn't stop the banks from sending out mass mailing to every body that had a pulse. I remember getting 5 or 6 new ones a day in my mailbox in the 1980's.

I finally caved and got one and very soon got into trouble with it.... never got one again no matter how good my credit was, but it was knowledge gained through hard experience. I'm not a stupid person. This is how the banks get over on people, and every new generation or demographic that gets targeted will suffer the same learning curve with each new financial product that comes out.

Heavy marketing pressure on consumers, deregulation, low interest rates by the FED RESV, and rising home values - which was marketed falsely to mean that your net worth was increasing, all were leveraged against the private citizen to get them to go into debt to finance consumerism. The marketing worked as millions fell trap to it..... Madison Ave would not exist and have billions of dollars sent their way if mass marketing did not work.

Just in case you don't know - it's going to take another 10 years to maybe get this country back to where it was prior to 2008.

Thats not a surprise to me. It took longer than 10 years for us to get into the mess we currently are. To expect things to change within a few years is not realistic..... considering there has been very little legislation passed to reel in the financial sector. Things are still pretty much business as usual. I see auto ads on TV hawking no money down zero interest loans on cars.

The economy is driven by the consumer and small business - not big business as you may think. 75% of the businesses in the US are small business. 68% of the economy is driven by the consumer.

I agree and actually stated in an earlier post directed to you that the size of the business doesn't matter, its demand that matters.

So, if people aren't wise enough to get their act together thinking that they are owed everything and it's the governments job to give it to them, this country will never recover.

Thats tough when the government sends the message through TARP and other programs that help is only for those that are Too Big Too FAIL.

The rest of your post you are wasting your time. I believe that a free education is a right. That an educated citizenry is the best asset we can have in this country.... that a college degree isn't necessarily just for a career but for personal development.

"An educated citizenry is a vital requisite for our survival as a free people." ~ Thomas Jefferson

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

people don't need jobs

they need food and shelter

[-] 0 points by SteveKJR (-497) 2 years ago

Well, they can get food and shelter by not having a job right now. But if everyone looks at it from that perspective, when the government runs out of money, then what?

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

they pull money off the top and re introduce it at the bottom

[-] 0 points by SteveKJR (-497) 2 years ago

However, eventually the money on the top will run out - then what?

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (34975) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

You are confused - the money is at the top now ( most ) - and what do you see? A stagnant and dying economy.

Using Matt's program - the money is taken out of storage and sent out into the economy.

Guess what? Steve?

Since the wealthy are already set in the position to receive - that money cycles it's way back to the wealthy - the thing is to keep the money cycling.

So instead of allowing the wealthy business owner to have say a 450% pay differential - they are allowed only to have say an 80% earnings differential. This means that all of that money needs to be reinvested in the business or reinvested in new business or paid in to the government for it to invest in society. Neat thing is as the business grows and the employees prosper - so does the owner as that 80% differential grows in actual monetary value as revenue increases it just needs to stay relative to employee income.

80% of 100,000 = 80,000

80% of 1,000,000 = 800,000

80% amounting to different monetary values.

Now in this the people also need a say as to what is proper investment by the government. No more throwing money at problems. Actually buy goods and services for American businesses for use in humanitarian aid.

At regular market value. And from a variety of suppliers - none of this Halliburton one stop shopping profiteering BS.

Share governmental business fairly. And again the money returns to the economy and the American people.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

the top will keep gathering the money from the bottom through business

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

I agree

money flows up in an entrepreneur market

.

the government budget is about 3.7 trillion

the Gross national product is about 15 trillion

[-] -3 points by Dgoerz (20) 2 years ago

That's just redistributionist garbage. It doesn't matter who has money as they money is in the system. It either is spent or saved but it all remains in the system. What matters is who has confidence to invest more and work more.

[-] 2 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 2 years ago

The money is not in the system if the majority of it is hoarded by a small percentage. 300,000,000 people spending and buying has more economic impact than 400 people with billions doing nothing but trading companies amongst each other.

Confidence to invest in a company is based on performance of that company. If there is no demand for that company's product no one will invest no matter how good that product may seem, who is running it, or what the stock price is, or how much cash that company has.

Demand is created by the common person who has cash to buy goods.

[-] -1 points by Dgoerz (20) 2 years ago

Yes, the money is in the system. Go back and learn your economics. People don't hoard money their either spend it or save it, either way it is in the system being used.

Economic growth is all about confidence. Demand and markets do not discern between socio-economic groups.

[-] 2 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 2 years ago

Economic growth is all about production of goods and selling them... speaking of going back and learning your economics... confidence does not put food on the table.

Hoarding can be accomplished in many ways, usually by conversion of cash to valuable objects..... gold ETF's, fine art, collecting expensive homes, diamonds... all of which sit and hopefully gain value over time.

Saving cash is also hoarding. In times of tight credit where the banks aren't making loans like today, it takes money out of circulation.

[-] -1 points by Dgoerz (20) 2 years ago

Banks are reserving cash because they don't know where the regulations are going. One day they have Obama's people in there telling them not to lend, and then he decides six months ago to lend and now he is reversing course again.

That money is in the system and available. The ironic part of it is that now with all of the work and protesting you folks have done, only the 1% will get the loans.

[-] 2 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 2 years ago

Until the employment rate increases through real job creation, it doesn't matter that they are not lending. Banks create debt for the private citizen, something we have had way too much of.

Commercial banks lending short term to businesses are important for tasks like meeting payroll gaps. But commercial banking plays by different rules.

In the old days before loan securitization, if a person ran into trouble with a loan or mortgage, you used to be able to approach your lender, who knew you by name and work out arrangements. But banks are no longer the owners of the loans they make. Arrangements can no longer be made because when a loan is securitized its bundled and that bundle has to meet certain performance criteria contractually.

Lowering interest rates on loans would lower the income stream generated by that bundle which would then put the bundle into default, triggering CDS's to go into default. Investors would not be happy.

Cash should have been injected to those with private debt, for these are the consumers, and consumers run the economy. But that didn't happen. The money may be in the system, but its available to the wrong group.... and not because of OWS.... nice try, you are welcome to play again.

[-] -2 points by Dgoerz (20) 2 years ago

You think commercial banks lending is only for payroll gaps? What, real companies don't have payroll gaps? Have you heard of budgeting. This isn't your local car wash.

Giving money to consumers, just like giving money to corporations, does nothing. You have to move the supply side and the demand side will follow. The money is in the system it is only lacking confidence. The amateur in the WH only makes it worst. All of business knows now the positive impact of fracking and know that he fought it all the way.

You are absolutely wrong about OWS. Just look at the credit card bill that passed Congress. It's the poor people who got their credit reduced, not the 1%.

[-] 2 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 2 years ago

Since you are a 'supply sider', regrettably your opinion is worth two shits to me. You really don't have a grasp on how things work. Confidence my ass.

[-] 0 points by Dgoerz (20) 2 years ago

Just confirming that you are wrong. You and your band of comrades are losing all over the place. Nice job in Wisconsin by the way.

[-] 2 points by GeorgeAmerican (2) 2 years ago

You seriously don't know what you are talking about. But this guy does. He's likely far more successful than you, and definitely knows what he's talking about.

http://youtu.be/3Wc9bWc-WRs

Watch and be enlightened.

[-] 2 points by shooz (17751) 2 years ago

It's the JOB of the middle class to create jobs.

NO one else.

If you starve the middle, it will all die.

Everything else is complete Bullshit.

[-] 1 points by reckoning (53) 2 years ago

I dont need a job, i have welfare, foodstamps and free housing! and its all free for me!

Thank You Obama!!

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

Don't forget that two trillion more is coming from the two wars that we shouldn't have been in and there is one trillion from the Bush tax cuts. The stimulative effect of the war spending and the tax cuts produced almost no jobs and no increase (single digits) increase in income for the bottom 20%.

And then one third of the stimulus was tax cuts, at the insistence of the GOP, and one third was infrastructure which was slow in being spent.

So if we had the money from those Bush bungles and the mis allocated stimulus and if it had actually been spent on stimulative and growth investments. The economy would be in much better shape.

Also don't forget that the economic policies we are currently following are the do nothing policies of the GOP since they wouldn't pass any of Obama's programs.

Can't have it both ways, either they are Obama's policies and they are working better than Europe's austerity program or they are the GOP's and that is why the growth is too slow.

Besides, we all know you are a troll (3) three lousy posts? Who are you kidding?

[-] 1 points by francismjenkins (3713) 2 years ago

Sure, the government could (in theory) bankroll a recovery. 42,000 factories have closed since the year 2000. The government could fund the reopening of those factories (which, by itself, would be enough to restore our economy). Infrastructure, I mean, we all know our infrastructure suffers from trillions in underinvestment (it's falling into disrepair, and in some cases, obsolescence). So there's plenty of stuff to do ... but where did all this debt go to? Only a very small sliver of that debt can be attributed to the 99% (think about it, if the government pumped even $3 or 4 trillion directly into the economy, let alone $5 trillion, we'd be booming right now). I mean, social security and medicare are both still self-sustaining (and with very minor changes, they can remain that way). So for the most part, if you want to know who benefited from most of that debt, just go downtown Manhattan, and take a look around.

[-] 1 points by alexrai (851) 2 years ago

What proportion of that 5 Trillion is bomb money, bank bailouts, or debt repayment? That is probably where the answer is! :p

[-] 1 points by nobnot (529) from Kapaa, HI 2 years ago

What are you talkin about ? I have no debt.So go screw yourself!

[-] 1 points by April (3196) 2 years ago

If it is the "job" of business to create jobs - they aren't doing a very good job. Maybe they should be fired.

Wealthy people and corporations are only "potential" job creators. If there is demand. What dumbass ding dong business owner is going to create jobs based on less regulation and lower tax rates if there is no demand? Less regulation and lower tax rates for the wealthy and corporations simply leads to higher levels of wealth inequality. Not jobs. Right wing economic ill-logical lies are the problem.

http://www.thenation.com/image/extreme-inequality-chart

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/10/03/334156/top-five-wealthiest-one-percent/

The problem is lack of demand. Not uncertainty (another popular Right wing bullshit talking point), not regulation, not taxes. Maybe you need to get it in your mind that demand creates jobs.

See Figure D http://www.epi.org/publication/regulatory-uncertainty-phony-explanation/

The decline in revenue is due to Bush policies - the Bush tax cuts and the wars. The vast majority of those tax benefits went to the wealthy. The continued budget deficits are due to the carryover of Bush policies, at a 5:1 cost ratio v Pres. Obama's policies.

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=3490

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/obamas-and-bushs-effect-on-the-deficit-in-one-graph/2011/07/25/gIQAELOrYI_blog.html

The Bush tax cuts produced zero growth.

http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Columns/2010/09/17/Bush-Tax-Cuts-No-Economic-Help.aspx#page1

The greatest cycle of prosperity and sustained job growth occurred after the Great Depression (preceded by the Guilded Age and the highest level of wealth inequality in our history - only to be surpassed by our current wealth inequality levels- which shows no signs of slowing down).

When top effective tax rates were raised and averaged 60-70% (decreased somewhat under Kennedy, after the debt level was paid down to 30% of GDP and basically, until the Reagan tax cuts. Then slashed again under Bush).

At the 60-70% tax levels, we paid down WWII debt (which was approx 120% of GDP, similar to the level we have today), built out our national infrastructure, put men on the moon and we saw our greatest sustained levels of economic expansion in history. With lower levels of wealth inequality, and a thriving middle class being the backbone of the country.

But gee, I don't know. Maybe we should all vote for the Romney/Ryan Republican Budget Plan to give $265M government tax assistance to millionaires and let the less fortunate starve until they get off their lazy asses and find a job.

So yes. I think more government spending is needed to stimulate the economy to create jobs. Do you really think millionaires need government assistance? I don't think so.

[-] 1 points by monetarist (40) 2 years ago

Correlation and Causation are two different things. The high top tax rates did not in any way cause the economic boom at that time. You will not find a single economist, in his/her right mind, who would agree with you.

Things like outsourcing will not stop if you increase personal or corporate tax. Higher taxation will not slow down India or China or any of the other asian countries. Higher taxation here will not cause China and India's huge population advantage to vanish over night. Higher taxation here will not lead to appreciation in either the Indian Rupee or the Chinese Renminbi or remove the labor cost arbitrage that these countries have in their favor.

[-] 1 points by April (3196) 2 years ago

I never said higher top tax rates caused the boom. But it did correlate. Those high tax rates paid down the debt, and did not prevent the economy from growing.

Will the deficit be lowered by providing $265M government assistance to millionaires? Will lowering tax rates even further for the wealthy create jobs?

"It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion." Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations

Or maybe Romney and Ryan are oh so much smarter than Adam Smith.

I get it. Maybe you like a free market economy. Low tax rates and little if any regulation. Perhaps we should put our youth to work at slave wages to compete with China. They're not learning that much in school anyway. And according to Republicans, a college education is way over-rated. Plus most average folks can't afford college anymore anyway.

[-] 1 points by monetarist (40) 2 years ago

Correlates so what? I can show you very good correlation (R-sqaure value of more than 95%) between increase in global warming and decrease in number of sea pirates. Does that mean global warming is due to lesser number of pirates in the high seas?

At that time we did not have debt because we were exporting heavily. We were net producers and not consumers.

As for Adam Smith, you choose to highlight his words that suit your purpose. There are a lot other other things he have said which would not follow your line of thinking, I hope you will agree to those too.

Frankly, it's not what I like and dislike; we are talking about people and society here, not ice-cream.

[-] 1 points by April (3196) 2 years ago

Economic growth still happened, in spite of those higher tax rates.

Adam Smith - please highlight words of your choosing that would support even lower tax rates on the wealthy. That would support the wealthiest in society having lower effective tax rates than the average. Like we have now.

You didn't answer my question. Will the deficit be lowered by providing $265M government assistance to millionaires? Will lowering tax rates further for the wealthy create jobs?

Like/dislike - fair enough. What do you think of a free market economy? Should we put our youth to work as wage slaves to compete with China? Do you think we should have lower taxes and even less regulation. What's your suggestion?

[-] 0 points by monetarist (40) 2 years ago

Economic growth still happened because there was no India or China to compete with us either in capital or labor. Things have changed now, don't you realize that?

Will lowering taxes create jobs? I don't know. But I am not exactly sure how increasing them would either. I need to think on this and read up relevant research papers.

I think a free market economy in the most natural thing. No we cannot compete with China as far as cost of labor is concerned. What should we do then? We should do stuff we are good at and where cost is not a factor. High precision engineering or specialized manufacturing or high end software development. Costs in China are also rising and they cannot forever continue this way. But if China goes, some other (probably African) country would crop up to replace it. We can' really play the tariff or taxes game here. We need to stop playing games which we can't win and instead choose games where our strengths lay.

[-] 2 points by April (3196) 2 years ago

India and China, yes I realize that. We cannot compete with these wages nor should we want or try to. Yet, right to work laws, passing in many states, further deteriorate wages for lower level workers. As if were gonna play the China game. Right to work is more right wing policy that is not going to help.

The Bush tax cuts did nothing to create jobs. Increasing taxes would help the deficit. I'm sure you are capable of doing your own research, but read the links I provided. Eliminating the Bush tax cuts would do alot to help decrease the deficit.

If you do some research on taxes, you will find that Pres. Kennedy lowered tax rates to help job growth, because the economy was slowing down. He also believed this was ok, because the deficit was down to a manageable level of 30% of GDP. His tax cuts targeted the middle class. Their were Keynesian in nature. Even later, Nixon applied Keynesian policies as well. Unlike the Reagan and Bush tax cuts. Which used trickle down theory to support massive tax benefits going to the upper income levels. Which, yes, under Reagan produced some short term economic benefit. But look at the longer term results of wealth inequality that it has contributed to. And the Bush tax cuts, on top of the Reagan cuts, produced no benefit to the economy as a whole. It just further exasperated wealth inequality. But yet Republicans want more tax cuts. On top of the Bush tax cuts. On top of the Reagan tax cuts. This makes no sense whatsoever. Trickle down is just what it says it is. A trickle. As in "teeny tiny little droplets".

I think a free market economy, pure capitalism, would murder itself. We've never had a free market economy. We don't put our children to work as wage slaves. We've always had a mix of social policy, and regulated capitalism. And since the Guilded Age up until Reagan and then Bush, had higher taxes. It was under Pres. Reagan that wealth inequality began rising.

I agree that China's current situation is not sustainable. Their wages are rising, capitalism there is creating wealth that will not be able to be controlled by the communist party forever. There is no evidence that communist controlled state capitalism is sustainable. I agree we need to stop playing the China game. Even as their situation is not sustainable long term.

We do best when we lead with innovation. This is what creates jobs ultimately. But to lead with innovation, as we have done in the past, we need the best education system in the world. Currently we are only average. We let our education system decline at the same time that we were losing blue collar and lower level jobs through NAFTA and then overseas. So it's really no wonder we have problems now.

I really think that the only way to truly improve things economically is to improve our education system. And privatizing it is definately NOT the answer.

[-] 0 points by JoeWinters (47) 2 years ago

I hope everything's going good for you. I just stopped by for a few days because of bed rest. I have a damn bronchitis. Can't work. I'll be fine soon, I think. Anyways, I just spent a few days having fun with Richard and friends. I'll probably go on another hiatus now. Just wanted to say hi and hope all is well.

[-] 1 points by April (3196) 2 years ago

I'm sorry you're sick. : ( I See you're having fun with richard and Renay. Just like old times. I haven't seen FriendlyObserver in a while. But guess what he told me a while back that he missed you. Isn't that just the sweetest thing ever!!

What's wrong with my posts here? Did you downvote me??

[-] 0 points by JoeWinters (47) 2 years ago

Your posts here? I don't see anything wrong, and no, I didn't down vote you. I never down voted you ever!!!

I can't believe FriendlyObserver said that! I remember he posted some pretty lame ideas sometimes, but he seemed quite earnest and nice. I think he was just a bit young and naive (still a teenager?), but a real nice guy in truth. I wonder what happened to him?

[-] 1 points by April (3196) 2 years ago

I think FO still comes and goes. You always made fun of him in a nice way. Maybe that's why he misses you. Or maybe he realized he didn't really wanna be the one picking up your dogs poo. Then again, not. Last I saw, he was still pushing his profit cap theories. And everyone was still telling him it was silly.

But GypsyKing posted a farewell not long ago.

[-] 0 points by JoeWinters (47) 2 years ago

Yeah, I saw GK's farewell. It reminded me of his first farewell after which he instantly came back posting more than ever before. I was expecting him to do the same, but it seems he won't come back.

I'm surprised ZenDog never came back. I know he quit because my bots scared him, but after I left it doesn't seem like he came back. I did a quick search and he hasn't posted forever.

Funny this community. Some come and go. I'm surprised you're still here since you're not really into anarchy. What does keep you here? Are you hoping OWS will soften up and become more of a socialist movement than a anarchist one?

[-] 1 points by April (3196) 2 years ago

I like writing about the banks and the economy is all. And the election too. And I learn some stuff. epa1nter is one of my faves to read. He always has good stuff about the economy and education issues too. He used to be a teacher you know. He's really smart.

There is plenty happening aside from the movement that will affect change. I'm not too worried about it. It will just take a while.

Poor Zen. Maybe I'll check in on him on his blog. I don't think you were that hard on him were you? Maybe he just scares easy. : )

[-] 0 points by JoeWinters (47) 2 years ago

Yeah, I read many postings by epa1nter. He's the best poster on this forum at the moment, no question. I always learn from him and I like his logic. He's sharp.

I wish jart wrote more often. And agnostixie whatever her name is. I like those anarchists. They're always like angry rich kids in their comments.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (34975) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

It will if you make it just as costly to bring the outsourced product or service back into this country. Include a tariff to reflect if they were paying every worker an American living wage. The least paid worker should not be a debt/wage slave.

Remove that attractiveness of offshore sweat shops.

[-] 0 points by monetarist (40) 2 years ago

Those aren't sweat shop at all. People work proper shifts of 8 or 9 hours in most cases. Sure you wouldn't find the great NYTimes reporting that because hey that does not make for sensational reporting ("Chinese workers at Foxconn working 9 hrs a day" or "Indian BPO employees work in 8 hour shift". Boring).

The fact is the cost of living in those countries are lower and therefore they need to pay their workers proportionately less. The cost of real estate is also lower.

Sure you can bring a tariff to deter manufacturing imports or put a tax on companies outsourcing their back office work to India or Phillipines. But will our government do that, more importantly CAN our government do that?

Do you think these Chinese or Indians will sit quitely and take it? They would retaliate with tariffs and taxes of their own, and American companies would lose access to these huge markets. Remember, two can play this game.

Also do you think American companies can fill the supply gap overnight that would result if these tariffs or taxes were implemented? Will huge factories spring up overnight? Will skilled workers do perform these tasks appear from nowhere? Do we even have that manu people who want to do these tasks (not every unemployed person necessarily want to or has the capacity to work in the shop floor or BPO). It took china nearly two decades to build up that manufacturing capability. Do you think we can do that over night?

offshoring will always be attractive, it has historically been so.

[-] 1 points by alexrai (851) 2 years ago

Lose access to this huge market? That's the funniest comment I've heard all day. Aside from iPods (manufactured in China) what does China buy from the US?

Right now the model is exploit cheap labor costs overseas and sell domestically. It should be manufacturer domestically and sell domestically.

[-] 1 points by monetarist (40) 2 years ago

What does China buy from US? A lot actually. Sure, China does not buy as much from American companies and American buy from China, but China is a fast growing market with a huge population that is slowly gaining more purchasing power and is willing to spend. If you didn't know that, it's your problem and the joke is on you.

FYI, iPods aren't all that popular in China actually.

[-] 1 points by alexrai (851) 2 years ago

Not nearly as popular as pirated films I'm sure... and "not as much" is a bit of an understatement when you consider the size of the trade deficit.

I realize why transnational corporations are eying up China as domestic sales plummet with the eroding middle class, its because China has been benefiting off American investment and American consumerism for so long that they will be the only place with customers soon.

Anyway, I hope you're not seriously suggesting that Chinese demand is somehow going to revive the US economy... because that would be even funnier than your last comment.

I wonder what economist thought it would be a good long term economic strategy to allow for the sudden addition of a few billion more people into the labor supply by virtue of policies of globalization . He needs a Nobel prize...

[-] 1 points by monetarist (40) 2 years ago

i do not argue with idiots

[-] 1 points by alexrai (851) 2 years ago

classy response.

But seriously, China is not dumb enough to export all its manufacturing capacity to other countries. What American goods is China interested in? Solindra solar panels? Hollywood movies? GM Cars? F35 fighters?

China is a shining example of how a state can actually direct an economy to the overall benefit its society. Through its currency manipulations, laws requiring foreign companies to enter joint ventures with Chinese companies etc.

They will not buy American, they will rip off the ideas they like and do their own thing, not start mass importing high-tech gadgets from the new "US knowledge economy."

To the disdain of conventional economic wisdom, China has played the game very well for the past 30 years or so... and is the only (former) third world country with enormous wealth, and a growing middle class, and it is about to reach the technological sophistication of other first world countries, and probably surpass them.

[-] 1 points by monetarist (40) 2 years ago

China has done nothing that is strictly against conventional economic wisdom. And it hasn't done anything that is particularly new. They did pretty much what the Asian tigers- HK, Sing, SKorea, Taiwan- did 2 decades before them. China (and India and the Asian tigers before them) followed a economic policy that is a hybrid of blatant capitalism and outright socialism.

What American goods are the chinese interested in? Everything from soaps to beers to cars to fighter jets. Many American goods have a certain posh perception associated with them in China. The perception of McDonalds in China is very different from how it is now here. Pabst Blue Ribbon beer is marketed like champagne in China and sold at a decent premium price. So yes they do buy American provided they have the purchasing power.

And China is not a former third world country. Don't make that mistake. Out of the last 20 decades China has not been a world power for only 2 decades. China has historically seen itself as what they call 'the middle kingdom' - the world between the heavens where Gods reside and the lower world of mere mortals like you and me. And while those exact words may not be part of their foreign policy now, the spirit pretty much remains the same. They were a powerful country that lost its glory for sometime and became a third world country and is now trying to regain it's past glory.

[-] 1 points by francismjenkins (3713) 2 years ago

In a weird way, China provides good support for Keynesian economic theory. However, at this point China is capitalizing on its ability to have an uber-self absorbed economic policy (the US, on the other hand, acts to maintain its hegemony, which, depending on the case, may or may not be in the interest of the people).

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (34975) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

It is called achieving Parity.

It is called leveling the playing field.

It is called making everyone play by the same humanitarian rules as there is no advantage to being a bastard douche bag.

It is called the right thing to do to force positive change in the world through stomping hard on greed.

[-] 1 points by monetarist (40) 2 years ago

It is at parity and the playing field is perfectly levelled. Just as we cannot compete against them in cost, they cannot compete with us in technology. You distort the playing field when you introduce tariff barriers.

Chinese and Indians aren't as technologically advanced as us. So should they oppose to cars from GM or Ford? Should the Indians impose tariffs on Windows because their software industry isn't as developed and therefore, as you insist, the playing field should be levelled?

Each country/region has certain advantages and disadvantages. The countries will always try to make the most out of their advantages. The Arabs have oil, the Germans have their engineering prowess, Chinese and Indians have lots of people. As simple as that.

And what humanitarian rules are you talking about? Ever heard of the term purchasing power parity? The guy who heads the development center of my company in India is paid around $300k while I, a mere product manager here, get $250k. A product manager in India would be paid $60k to $80k. And these salaries are in no way less for India, they are very huge amounts in India (which explains why our Indian office gets so many CVs all the time). It's the right amount to pay there. It is similar to the fact that salaries are sometimes different across different states based on the local cost of living (like cost of real estate etc).

Get a clue before you embark on a crusade to 'stomp hard on greed'.

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (34975) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Yeah and what used to be illegal outsourcing high tech work to those who might use it against us is now common practice - Apple in China.

China no respect for their own people and absolutely no respect for foreign rights or properties.

Wake up.

[-] 1 points by monetarist (40) 2 years ago

Isn't that Apple's problem? It's Apple's IP, if they are fine with it, who are you to object? Companies are free to take their own decisions in these matters. And I am pretty sure there is no nuclear technology hidden inside iPhones that China could use against us. As for respecting human rights, the conduct of our very own govt has been all that exemplary either. So let's cut the crap, shall we?

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (34975) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

No it is our problem.

Level the playing field make it more expensive to outsource work then to do it at home.

Make the assholes bleed to access the market they abandoned.

That is part of the job of government - Protecting the United States of America from foreign and domestic threats.

[-] 1 points by monetarist (40) 2 years ago

No it isn't your problem. Companies can do whatever they want with their IP. And its not levelling the playing. It is because of these tariff barriers and subsidies given by the United States of America to farmers that African farmers are entirely unable to compete with American farmers and as a result of which the entire African continent is in poverty. Otherwise, we, you and I, would have had cheaper food and the African farmers would also have survived.

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (34975) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

BS.

They are getting away with raping the world because we are allowing them to.

The shit you talk. Makes me think you would like to see Robo-Cop World.

I'LL buy that for a dollar.

Shit head.

[-] 0 points by monetarist (40) 2 years ago

Swear words have historically never proven to be a good substitute for an argument or intelligence.

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (34975) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

So sorry - Not.

Guess I was not raised genteel like you.

Most Folks I know are plain spoken and do not take crap and will use whatever language they feel is appropriate.

You on the other hand remind me of a character in a fantasy story about goblins and such.

YEP - Worm Tongue - or some such. Spoke such pretty poisons.

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (34975) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Sorry I tend to disagree with your provided article:

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/07/05/opinion/farm-subsidies-that-kill.html

Excerpt:

''These subsidies are crippling Africa's chance to export its way out of poverty,'' said James Wolfensohn, the World Bank president, in a speech last month.


Africa has everything it needs to prosper and grow and become fully modern and developed.

They have a shit load of natural resources that are being raided by foreign corporations.

They have metals.

They have Oil.

They have precious gems.

They have forests.

They have fertile land.

They have manpower.

They have everything they need to be a self sufficient continent and an equal world power.

Their population just does not realize what is being withheld or taken from them.

Profiteers/Raiders/Pirates ongoing paradise.

[-] 0 points by monetarist (40) 2 years ago

I am neither a racist nor a supremacist. But when you insist that American workers and companies should survive even at the cost of poor farmers in Africa or China, then that makes you a racist and a xenophobe. for me, if company X or person Y is unable to compete he or she must learn to adapt (get a new job or upgrade their skills or both) or perish, whatever the nationality of the company/person may be.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

poor farmers are losing in the market because the are under sold by a foreign market

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (34975) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Why should they have a problem with stuff made or grown in their country having an equal footing in the world market. Hell there is a lot of Africa that is starving their produce should not be exported to other countries until theirs is fed properly. Why should their produce go out to the world when their own people are starving?

What other pretty poisons do you have to spew?

[-] 0 points by monetarist (40) 2 years ago

Oh I am sorry that I have better set of manners than you do. I am sorry also for not depending on swear words to help me when I am outwitted. I am also sorry for having aced my SAT, GRE and GMAT verbals (and quant as well) back in the day.

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (34975) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Worm Tongue - Your Back - You must love me. Is it a light or a glow that reminds you of once having lived a surface life?

Sorry subtle poison spewers who support the greedy corrupt are not to my taste.

Go speak your pretty poisons to a racist or a supremacist group ( sorry basically the same ) They will appreciate your poisonous words. They probably like shiny objects too. Remember to slap em once in a while though - they tend to be as smart as a box of rocks and they can forget to breathe.

They will love you - no doubt.

[-] 0 points by Dgoerz (20) 2 years ago

Spending as a % of GDP was much lower int he 50's than it was now so how did government spending help drive the economy.

Since tax rates were lowered in 1980, the US economy has not only experienced good growth but lower unemployment and probably most important of all, incredible rates of innovation as new inventions and companies were created. This didn't happen in your pristine era. The revenue and business went to all of the large companies. There were no Facebooks in the 50's

[-] 2 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

lower taxes have nothing to do with software success

[-] 1 points by Dgoerz (20) 2 years ago

It absolutely does because it allows entrepreneurs to take home more of their money. Have you never done a spreadsheet to forecast a company; success. Taxes are part of that. The innovation we have experienced since 1980 is amazing and only increasing.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

they take home more money

so what

inventors invent for there own sake

[-] 0 points by Dgoerz (20) 2 years ago

If money didn't matter, why doesn't Zuckerberg or Jobs give it all away. Money and incentives matter. They matter a lot.

[-] 0 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

are those inventors?

[-] 1 points by Dgoerz (20) 2 years ago

Uh, yeah... the Mac operating system, the Ipod, Facebook.

[-] 0 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

is there some new facebook routine that I haven't seen?

[-] 1 points by Dgoerz (20) 2 years ago

???

[-] 1 points by infonomics (393) 2 years ago

Consumer spending = 67% of GDP.

Baby boomers (beginning 1946 or 1947) = 33%-37% of consumer spending.

Baby boomers are retrenching or retiring or dying.

There is no justifiable reason supporting growth.

CFO's (chief financial officers) have repeatedly stated both that demand in America is weak and that their focus is in China. (They got lucky.)

No stimulus will provoke a boomer to needless discretionary spending.

The great post-WWII prosperity is over.

[-] 1 points by jimmycrackerson (940) from Blackfoot, ID 2 years ago

And with all the politicians arguing over gay marriage, abortion, medical care, pipelines and oil drilling; Ron Paul is the only person who cares about balancing the budget and attempting to get us out of debt. He speaks of reducing government spending and reducing the looming presence of the federal government altogether.

It's like the rest of these dummies don't even know or acknowledge or care that we're nearing 16 trillion dollars in national debt. They think they can dink around for a couple of terms while siphoning off a couple billion from people who work for a living and then cut-and-run when the shit hits the fan.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (34975) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

So the idea should be - if you are paying attention.

Remove the tax breaks to the filthy rich - one step forward for the budget.

Remove tax breaks from the obscenely wealthy corporations - another step forward for the budget.

Leave tax breaks in place for the needy - more money to circulate directly into the economy making needed purchases.

Slam ( I mean apply tariffs ) penalties onto imported/outsourced products/work of the obscenely wealthy corporations using sweat shop labor. That made it attractive to abandon American Workers. Make it just as costly for them as if they were making the product or providing the service from home The USA - including the costs for supporting a living wage for all workers. Least paid worker does not remain a debt/wage slave.

Cancel unneeded subsidies to industries that are making a good profit and do not need them. Transfer the subsidies to upgrading our infrastructure - with things like green energy power plants. Renewing the power grid can be done as a loan to the power companies - same with green energy power production. Continue investment in R&D of Green Technology implementation and jobs.

Just a start in the right direction.

But I believe a good start.

[-] 0 points by Pequod (17) 2 years ago

Its more proof that reliance on Keynesian theory is a fools bargain.

[-] -1 points by TitusMoans (2451) from Boulder City, NV 2 years ago

You're chasing the white whale, Pequod, if you rely on ever greater austerity for the proletariat and greater wealth for the bourgeousie as a solution for the economic woes of our time.

Business does not create jobs; business is nothing more than commerce, which can be conducted with or without privately held companies or corporations. The real answer is a new system of governance and a redistribution of wealth, so the most productive are rewarded, but the least productive are not cast aside like so much detritus.

[-] 1 points by SteveKJR (-497) 2 years ago

So you say that "business does not create jobs" If people who own and run their own business don't create jobs and provide consumer products, who does?

And just whom do you consider "most productive to be rewarded" by redistribution of wealth? Could you please explain?

[-] 1 points by TitusMoans (2451) from Boulder City, NV 2 years ago

Commerce--trade--creates jobs, not brick-and-mortar businesses. No privately held companies or corporations are needed. I believe that's a simple enough concept, which requires no further explanation.

Regarding your second question; reward should be commensurate with contribution, though not excessive. Currently CEOs earn, on the average, about 500 times more than the average worker, while back in 1979, CEOs earned about 40 times more than the average worker. Lowest-paid workers have actually lost in real wages since 1979, while average workers, including the college-educated, have only gained fractionally in real wages. I believe there's something wrong with that picture, don't you?

[-] 0 points by SteveKJR (-497) 2 years ago

So you say that commerece-trade-creates jobs, not brick and mortar businesses nor do privately held companies or corporations.

The term "commerece" as defined by blacks law dictonary is explained as follows:

The exchange of "goods, productions or property of any kind; the buying, selling, and exchange of articles.

Noting that, just where do you think these "goods, products or property comes from? If it isn't made by "brick and mortar businesses, privately held companies or corporations, then tell me who will make these "good" to trade?

In order to have commerece, you have to have something to buy, sell or trade.

[-] 1 points by TitusMoans (2451) from Boulder City, NV 2 years ago

Just exactly as I wrote, though I will briefly explain: privately held companies and corporations are not necessary for trade. Humans were trading in paleolithic times; no brick and mortar businesses existed and most likely the concept of private ownership only included personal items. Even today trade, refining, manufacturing, etc. can all be accomplished without privately held companies or corporations.

[-] -1 points by SteveKJR (-497) 2 years ago

You still didn't answer the question - where do you think these "goods and products or property will come from"?

How can an "individual" build a car? How can an individual build a house? I can go on but I think you get the picture.

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by foreeverLeft (-264) 2 years ago

The 5 trillion isn't about a recovery, it's about keeping the economy down. Prosperous people don't vote Democrat. Prosperous people don't want to pay taxes. So, the worse the economy the more votes for Democrats and the more votes for Democrats the more taxes on the economy, see how it works?

If we keep the economy depressed and ever more people on food stamps and unemployment the more Democrat votes we will get! Middle class people trend Republican so we have to destroy the middle class.

[-] -1 points by TheMisfit (48) 2 years ago

Keynesian economics simply do not work. The idea that you can prop up failing businesses, inject money into an economy rather than economic drivers and increase government spending will somehow turn an economy around has been proven a failure time and again on the large scale. That may work for smaller nations that are not as dependent on the world market, but the US is unique in that we are the driving force of the world market. It would have been better for the government to have stepped aside and let the system reset, as it should have. Yes, it would have been very painful, but the large banks would have collapsed and smaller banks would have been able to expand. Chevy and Chrysler may have gone out of business, but it would have opened the market to more electric vehicles and other alternative fuel products. The governments intervention stifles growth and only serves to prolong the pain. It is like the flesh eating bacteria in the south east; you either cut away the damaged parts right away to save the whole, or you keep attacking the infection at each individual occurrence until there is nothing left, including the host.

[-] 2 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 2 years ago

You have no economic data to back up your premise, while there exists quite a few real world examples, including in the US that shows that you are wrong.

A market that runs free is exactly what caused this mess. There were no regulations in the derivatives market as per the 'Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000'. This is what turned a simple housing bubble burst into a global economy killer.