Consumers Turn Table on Bankers

[Dodds]

Same old crap, Dodds!

Thats what I thought when I read your unsupported post.

Show me the economic theory that promotes debt over 100% of GDP.

Show me one that doesn't. Also once more Japan. I could add others but you struggle with this one.

And the one that promotes continued, annual non targeted deficit spending.

Prove its non targeted.

Otherwise, it's just your dream. And you're welcome to live it alone.

And it is your right to post the same old debunked shit that is based in a dreamland that fiscal austerity will promote growth. It does not work. Its a myth, one that Europe is starting to realize.

Like you said its the same old crap. Also it has nothing to do with what I posted. What I posted showed that all of your assertions about the US economy are flat out wrong. Yet you still will not admit this. Why do you not let the facts get in the way of your belief system?

[Apeman81]

Thats what I thought when I read your unsupported post.



Show me one that doesn't. Also once more Japan. I could add others but you struggle with this one.



Prove its non targeted.



And it is your right to post the same old debunked shit that is based in a dreamland that fiscal austerity will promote growth. It does not work. Its a myth, one that Europe is starting to realize.

Like you said its the same old crap. Also it has nothing to do with what I posted. What I posted showed that all of your assertions about the US economy are flat out wrong. Yet you still will not admit this. Why do you not let the facts get in the way of your belief system?

So you cannot provide the economic theory you employ?

Thanks for playing

[Dan74]

Not following your logic...

Do you not realize that some people simply don't like capitalism? We've been in financial hell for so long that some people are beginning to lose faith in the system and taking up revolutionary ways. Parts of the Occupy movement are evidence of this.

[Dodds]

So you cannot provide the economic theory you employ?

Thanks for playing

LOL what a load of shit that post was. Do you want me to link you to an economist who does? It would be Paul Krugman by the way. And again you won't admit that your first post in this thread is 100% wrong. So thank you for once more proving you are clueless when it comes to both economic theory and current events. Its a great game you have here.

[Dieval]

Seriously? Ok the banking sector is a large part of the US economy, the banks are heavily indebted to each other, when one large bank fails we are looking at a global financial catastrophe like the one in 2008. If the banks were smaller there would be less of an impact on the economy as a whole.

If it's so bad when one fails, why are you advocating doing just that?

The deficit is falling in both monetary terms and as a percentage of GDP, I would call that under control. I guess you won't though.

There's nothing under control as far as spending is concerned.

You worked for a bank right? If you show this lack of understanding of economics it is no wonder the system failed. Have you ever heard of the multiplier effect? In simple terms it is the effect of every dollar spent by the government and the effect that has on the economy as a whole. Example would be a teachers wage. They would then take that wage and spend it in a shop. The shop owner would then take the income and spend it on whatever and so on and so forth. Therefore your assertion of government not creating wealth is flat out wrong.

When the government always receives a smaller percentage of the amount spent, how do they end up coming out ahead?
Wouldn't a wage that did not originate from the government always provide more income than one that did?

Questionable?

Infrastructure:

http://www.courierpress.com/news/201...1-10-inches-p/

Crime rates:

Doing better but still lagging behind Europe.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cr...e-total-crimes

Education.

Seems you guys can read but not do maths.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datab...cience-reading


Anyways, these things are all problems that the government can solve. Yet you don't want them to by the looks of things.

"maths"? Really?

You didn't answer my question.

[Senor Hoint]

So the recessions of 45, 49, 53, 57, 60, 69, 73, 80 did not occur?

None of those recessions was anywhere near as severe as our most recent one.

The most recent crisis was the direct result of government interference in the home loan industry, not only via the mismanagement of Mae and Mac, but through the imposition of reduced standards for loans.

It is further exacerbated via government intervention in the form of unclear future costs of employment through increased taxation via "Obamacare" and actual and proposed increases in rates of taxation and other costs.

This is nothing more than a fantasy.

And let's not forget more than 5 trillion dollars of deficit targetless deficit spending.

And this is a cause of the recession...how?

[Apeman81]

LOL what a load of shit that post was. Do you want me to link you to an economist who does? It would be Paul Krugman by the way. And again you won't admit that your first post in this thread is 100% wrong. So thank you for once more proving you are clueless when it comes to both economic theory and current events. Its a great game you have here.

Paul Krugman is an economic theory?

Oh no, he's just a guy. And what economic theory does he hold to? Keynesian. And where in that theory does it advance that debt to GDP ratio of 100% or higher is a good thing? Or non-targeted, annual deficit spending?

What was the target of the 2009, 10 11 and 12 deficit spending?

[Dieval]

Do you not realize that some people simply don't like capitalism?

Lots of you guys around these parts..

We've been in financial hell for so long that some people are beginning to lose faith in the system and taking up revolutionary ways. Parts of the Occupy movement are evidence of this.

What does this have to do with adding people to unemployment I was talking about?

[Dan74]

What does this have to do with adding people to unemployment I was talking about?

I already addressed that earlier, but I'll say it again.

Some people don't care about being removed from employment because employment sucks as much as unemployment. People will give up their jobs to change the system.

[Dodds]

Paul Krugman is an economic theory?

Oh no, he's just a guy. And what economic theory does he hold to? Keynesian. And where in that theory does it advance that debt to GDP ratio of 100% or higher is a good thing?

This is a stupid question, a really stupid one. Keynesian theory advocates saving during a boom(see Clinton and Blair to an extent) and spending during a bust (see Obama and Brown) the debt to GDP levels are not significant (See Japan with 200% and over of debt to GDP) it is growth in the economy. This keeps interest rates low which is why Germany has interest rates of near 0%. For all your positioning you lack any real understanding. Fact is we are in a bust. A bust caused by the very polices you have advocated. The only way for these polices to make sense is to rewrite history which is what you did in your first post in this thread.

Or non-targeted, annual deficit spending?

You have yet to prove its non targeted. Till you do (you can't) I shall treat this question with contempt. It has about as much truth in it as your first post in this thread.

What was the target of the 2009, 10 11 and 12 deficit spending?

Off hand I don't know. But check the budgets. They will tell you.

[Dodds]

If it's so bad when one fails, why are you advocating doing just that?

Did you read what I said? To stop that situation.

There's nothing under control as far as spending is concerned.

I doubt you will, but prove it.

When the government always receives a smaller percentage of the amount spent, how do they end up coming out ahead?

http://tutor2u.net/economics/revisio...celerator.html

Just read that. I am thinking of starting to charge you for this.

Wouldn't a wage that did not originate from the government always provide more income than one that did?

Not always.

"maths"? Really?

Yes I am British you know.

You didn't answer my question.

I am afraid I did, reread my post.

[Apeman81]

None of those recessions was anywhere near as severe as our most recent one.

And this is a cause of the recession...how?

During the decades when those regulations were in place nothing remotely like the most recent crisis happened.

Their were a number of recessions. Before and after the regulation changes. None of them has been like the recent one.

The problem now is the deep denial employed by many who choose political expediency over economic reality. The false promises of expanded government are weighing heavily on the economy. Debt to GDP over 100%. Massive, annual, directionless deficit spending, massive new incursions into the private sector, with associated taxation, government mandated purchases for the individual citizen, and wasteful and abusive government spending unchecked all serve to deny economic growth.

Add to that the strain on available credit caused by borrowing funds to fund the deficit spending, and you've got some pretty good reasons to see stagnation, low employment, increased dependency on government handouts to provide basic needs.

The government is bringing back the soup kitchen. It rejoices in a reduction in the unemployment rate, if even the reduction does not come because of an increase in employment, but rather the exhaustion of government payments and lack of available jobs leading to loss of hope.

Good for big government. It loves the patronage. It hungers for the control.