A tale of two economists

A tale of two economists (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

samboct -> A tale of two economists (8/25/2011 10:38:55 AM)
A friend of mine sent me this post along with this cartoon. Here's the author's comments. Take a long detailed look at the cartoon below that appeared in Newspapers Nationally in 1934. As Yogi Berra said it is "Deja vue all over again." Our present Administration has no sense of history and refuses to even consider it even when it is challenged to do so. The economic situation in this country although difficult could have been remedied and solved months ago by any astute, experienced CEO type and loyal American. If anyone thinks that this present leader is just having a period of bad luck and bad breaks as he lectures us all the time then you are dreaming. What we are seeing is a well planned destruction of American capitalism, freedom and culture by one very angry anti American man. Please LOOK at the cartoon below.........(maybe above?) Here's my response: I'd say the author of this diatribe against Obama is the one who has no sense of history- and has also forgotten whatever economics and science he ever learned.... Here's a timeline of the previous Depression along with the actions that were taken. I agree with the author of the post- they do seem very, very familiar. http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/Timeline.htm Here's a chart that shows things in a nutshell: Unemp.: Unemployment rate Tax Federal GNP Unemp. Year Receipts Spending Growth Rate ------------------------------------------------- 1929 -- -- -- 3.2% < Hoover era, Great Depression begins 1930 4.2% 3.4% - 9.4% 8.7 1931 3.7 4.3 - 8.5 15.9 1932 2.9 7.0 -13.4 23.6 1933 3.5 8.1 - 2.1 24.9 < FDR, New Deal begins; contraction ends March 1934 4.9 10.8 + 7.7 21.7 1935 5.3 9.3 + 8.1 20.1 1936 5.1 10.6 +14.1 16.9 1937 6.2 8.7 + 5.0 14.3 < recession begins, May 1938 7.7 7.8 - 4.5 19.0 < recession ends, June 1939 7.2 10.4 + 7.9 17.2 1940 6.9 9.9 1941 7.7 12.1 1942 10.3 24.8 1943 13.7 44.8 1944 21.7 45.3 1945 21.3 43.7 What's clear is that as Roosevelt followed Keynes prescription of deficit spending, i.e. making Uncle Sam the first customer, the economy grew, as shown by the figures from 1934- which of course, was when the cartoon was published. So the cartoonist, after the terrible suffering of 1932-1933, decried deficit spending as a means of giving the country to the Reds. Unfortunately, deficit spending worked, and unemployment dropped. But that didn't stop the Republicans back then, and when Roosevelt in 1937 cut back on deficit spending, the economy tanked again. Does being a Republican come with a set of blinders? Now, about my comments about science and economics. I'm not an economist, but I am a scientist. Science teaches us how to analyze problems- any problem, including economics. OK, science has remained largely mute about women other than to say that they're a much more complex system than men. There are four steps in science: 1) Formulate hypotheses. 2) Gather data 3) Analyze data. 4) Adjust hypotheses. 5) Optional- iterate as needed. Note- it doesn't really matter whether your hypotheses are correct or not when you begin collecting data. The process works regardless. It also works for economics.... There are two competing economic schools of thought. First is Keynes, represented by Krugman these days, and sort of embraced by Democrats. Keynes theory is that when the economy tanks, the government becomes the first customer and must "prime the pump" so to speak. Based on the data of the Depression, Keynes theory fits what was observed. In 2008, Krugman, using a Keynsian framework, pointed out that the stimulus being less than a trillion (he thought $2.5T was called for) was too small a percentage of the economy to really reverse the unemployment trend, and at best, unemployment would hold even. In contrast to most of the noise out there from Fox snews, it seems to me that Krugman was bang on- that the economy didn't flatline, but it's still pretty moribund. Smarter spending of the stimulus wouldn't have hurt either. Seems to me that Keynes economic theories have fit the data pretty well to date. Let's look at the Republican side, who if they follow any economist, seems to be Friedman. Most Republican candidates with a few exceptions (Mitt is a sharp guy, and I suspect Huntsman is as well) seem to be too dumb to understand economics, so they just prattle on about whatever they think people want to hear, but Friedman's economic theories seem to fit what they espouse. Friedman was the one who pointed out that easy money grows an economy, and a combination of low interest rates and a tax break would stimulate the economy. Reagan tried this, and lo and behold, it seemed to work. However, Bush II tried this, and it's failed miserably. Why? Well, if you look at interest rates now, they can't go any lower. Corporations are awash in cash. There's been a tax cut that's helped the wealthy. But no real economic stimulus- we've had a so called "jobless" recovery, which is an oxymoron if there ever was one. Why? Because the middle class is what grows an economy, and the middle class has been squeezed till its on life support. Under Ronnie, the tax cuts did affect the middle class, so they went out and spent it, thus growing the economy. Under Bush II, the middle class doesn't have much money, didn't get much of a tax cut, and didn't do jack to grow an economy. Neither did the rich folks- who haven't done jack yet, but if you listen to the bleating of the Republicans, if we give them another tax break, that'll fix things. If I were a cartoonist, I'd draw something which showed the Republican practicing voodoo with the budgets, and sacrificing the middle class chicken so that the blood drops into the mouth of a rich bitch...Bush 1 called Reaganomics "voodoo economics" and he was right then, and he's right now. Seems to me that we've all turned into zombies, and that the predominant religion of the US is now voodoo.... Cheers, Sam [image]local://upfiles/380815/C9E91E89FD274EFE89A8BDF6669E777B.jpg[/image]

Sanity -> RE: A tale of two economists (8/25/2011 10:59:16 AM)
Sure, deficit spending ALONG WITH THE TOTAL DESTRUCTION OF VIRTUALLY ALL OF OUR COMPETITION IN WWII Led to our recovery from the great depression But hey - why let bothersome facts get in the way of your tired leftist propaganda, sam?

Owner59 -> RE: A tale of two economists (8/25/2011 11:22:41 AM)
We were coming out of the depression by the time WWII started. The austerity measures taken by republicans just after the depression hit, prolonged the depression by ten years.

mnottertail -> RE: A tale of two economists (8/25/2011 11:25:02 AM)
The causality is not proven. But then you got the trouble that the teabaggers are pretending to avoid debt, as well as your howling that obama is sinking us into debt. So, your ploy here is to be howling at democrats regardless of the issue.

samboct -> RE: A tale of two economists (8/25/2011 11:34:21 AM)
"But hey - why let bothersome facts get in the way of your tired leftist propaganda, sam? " Ahh, so...Correction prease. Propapanda invorves knowing distortion of facks or creashun of rise to prove opposite point. I have used facks as accurateree as possibah to prove my point. No distortion. No rise. Point may be wrong, but is not propapanda. If you wish to disagree, prease show how my facks wrong or use additional facks proving own point. Sank you... Sam (invoking a very poor Harry Who imitation)

willbeurdaddy -> RE: A tale of two economists (8/25/2011 4:25:55 PM)
The economist about to be roasted is Bernanke. The money pumped into the system is about to explode into inflation unless steps are taken to pull that money back...and no matter what form the pullback takes it will be a major fucking problem. Either it will sink us back into recession/depression or devastate the financial industry the money was used to bailout.

mnottertail -> RE: A tale of two economists (8/25/2011 4:37:26 PM)
I am for it devastating the financial industry.

fmfclwu -> RE: A tale of two economists (8/26/2011 7:03:11 AM)
One nitpick: as Friedman Economics (often called Classical Econ, New Classical Econ, or in the extreme case, Real Business Cycle Theory) has failed miserably to predict the results the last few years, and as the Fed has expanded the monetary base in exactly the fashion classical economics calls for in a recession, Republicans, eager to hate on anything Obama does even if they would have agreed with it three years ago, have increasingly embraced Austrian economics (most notably the theories of Friedrich Hayek). The classical models would expect to see large government deficits lead to soaring interest rates, crowding out private investment. This is very easily shown to be wrong though: interest rates are not just failing to soar, they're at historic lows (which hasn't stopped Republicans from claiming that they're rising because of government spending anyways. Who needs facts?). The problem for Republicans is that most Americans do have interaction with interest rates regularly (owning Treasury bonds, having mortgages, having other debts), so it's hard to convince them that rates are soaring when they aren't. It's much easier to convince Americans that the Austrian prediction that's failing to materialize is actually happening - according to the Austrians, the quantitative easing programs of the Fed should be leading to hyperinflation. This is why you keep reading conservatives warning that hyperinflation is imminent - instead of acknowledging that their theory is failing to predict reality, it must be reality which is failing to match the theory, so there must be some devious conspiracy stopping them from being right. (Side note: Real Business Cycle Theory, which has become more and more popular on the right since it advocates both spending cuts and tight money, predicts both soaring interest rates and hyperinflation, which is why you've been hearing about "bond vigilantes" and imminent hyperinflation from the WSJ editorial pages since 2008.) Keynesian economics predicts (accurately, at least so far) that as long as the real desired short term rate is negative, the zero lower bound means that government deficits can't raise interest rates and expanded monetary supply can't be circulated enough to reach M3, so there also won't be hyperinflation. David Frum (a George W. Bush economic speechwriter and, until recently, a leading conservative economist) said it really well when he actually stopped to look at the data and not simply assume that some conspiracy must be stopping reality from conforming to his theories: "Imagine, if you will, someone who read only the Wall Street Journal editorial page between 2000 and 2011, and someone in the same period who read only the collected columns of Paul Krugman. Which reader would have been better informed about the realities of the current economic crisis? The answer, I think, should give us pause. Can it be that our enemies were right?"

samboct -> RE: A tale of two economists (8/26/2011 7:36:53 AM)
I read about the Austrians a while back, since they had a new take on what caused the Depression. However, I didn't see anything that suggested that their model fit the facts better than the Keynsian model.- they seem to be indulging in revisionist history which I guess keeps some professors employed. I'm not sure I'd call your post a nitpick, seems to be something of an amplification. I liked your comment about David Frum- but there's also one bit of wording I'd call everyone's intention to...- since when in the US, is someone who holds an opposing viewpoint- your enemy? "Can it be that our enemies were right?" I may disagree with those on the right, but at the end of the day, we're still both citizens of the US. Our enemies are people like Osama Bin Laden and his band of terrorist thugs and similar ilk- but a Republican? Umm, not quite in my book. I enjoy networking with a group of 15 plus guys (we're all guys, so it's Boy's Night Out)- and it's largely a Republican group. Debates, fueled by alcohol, can get quite heated and passionate- but I'd never call any of them my "enemy". I dunno, maybe that's Obama's plan- to channel Harry Truman who also came from behind in an election year with a terrible economy by drawing a comparison of Republicans to the financiers of dictators such as Hitler, Mussolini, and Tojo. You wanna talk about partisanship? We're not even close.... Cheers, Sam

StrangerThan -> RE: A tale of two economists (8/26/2011 8:33:49 AM)
We have a someone different environment now, Sam. True, spending is good in many ways. The problem however, is that we're reaching our limit in being able to do so. It's not just internal, the pressure to come to terms with our debt. That pressure is coming from around the world. The US is, for once, finding itself close to being in the position many individuals are, in trying to figure out how to pay the bills. Across the world, governments are cutting the very things we don't want to talk about - like services and retirements. Sure, we can always keep printing money - kind of like Germany did after WWI. I don't see an outcome that isn't painful - unless maybe we can mine the new diamond planet or something. Generating revenue is one of the answers for sure, but I don't think we can generate enough to keep even, much less pay down the debt.

samboct -> RE: A tale of two economists (8/26/2011 9:25:29 AM)
Hi ST That's an interesting point- and one that has been in the back of my head with the previous administrations wild spending spree running up the debt. In terms of paying it down...well, I tend to look at the transition away from fossil fuels as an opportunity, rather than a crisis- and an opportunity to grow the economy dramatically if we'd get back into manufacturing stuff. True, there will be pain as existing companies go under, but if at least you create new industries, the pain is lessened. Whether or not that level of economic growth will allow us to pay down our debt is another matter. We have dealt with higher ratios of debt to GDP- back post WWII, but we're certainly not far from those levels today. I think the worst thing the gov't can do is what it has been doing- belt tightening in the name of austerity which seems to me to be a thinly veiled ploy to make the economics of the country miserable while the other party is in power, so that the R's get voted back in- and allow them to continue trashing both our economy and our country. We do need economic stimulus and in a big way-similar to the defense build up of WWII. Its unfortunate that partisan bickering doesn't allow us to pull together here.... Sam

MileHighM -> RE: A tale of two economists (8/26/2011 9:58:23 AM)
Sam, A couple of things missing from your data. Today is different than that of FDR's, don't forget FDR pinned the dollar to gold. This stabilized US currency and prevented hyper-inflation. Today Obama is monetizing the debt by printing away. This is cratering the value of the dollar. Maybe not relative to other currencies, so much, as they are experiencing inflation too because of similiar global policies, but versus commodities, it is getting creamed. This is not limited to gold but copper, iron, and other commodities as well. I won't discuss oil because that is more or less artificially priced because of cartel style production around the world. Whether or not we experience hyper-inflation or not is yet to be seen, but when you crank up the printing presses you will see inflation, and bad inflation at that. This behavior will only offset any keynsian gain in the long run. That's why FDR pinned the dollar. Finally, something Obama and FDR and most people don't understand about Keynes is that Keynes never perscribed to the notion of structural deficits (We deficit spend in good times and in bad--he only advocated debt in the bad). Structural deficits hurt the government's ability to be the first consumer. Running massive deficits increases the interest liability of the government. As time goes on, the government looses the ability to pay for basic responsibilities forcing it to raise taxes. As they raise taxes, they mearly pull the stimulus back out of economy have a net affect of 0. While I agree with Keynes in principle, I have yet to see it really practiced in the manner true to the theory. Keynes would not call for tax cuts, beacause that would limit the ability of the government to stimulate the economy, but so do structural deficits and thats why he didn't favor such nonsense. Taking on debt without a clear path to get out of it only dooms us in the long run. Keynes, also, wasn't aware that such massive private debt would ever be held as well. I doubt he would even suggest stimulus in a case like our current one. When the private sector is burried in debt up to its eye balls, stimulus will not be spent on new goods and services. It will be spent in an attempt to reduce one's debt. This has no effect on the economy. If the government hoped to stimulate economic growth, it should have just bought stuff and then jambed in a landfill. Our current economic crisis is solely hinged around debt. Money was too cheap for too long and we burried ourselves in debt. Sure interest rates are still low, but who can qualify for loans anymore?!?!?!? If we can eliminate debt (primarily private debt) we can start spending again and getting the economy moving again. With regard to WWII, this is was what kicked us out of the great depression. FDR's own secretary of the treasury admitted in 1941 that all of the spending the government was doing wasn't really making any headway. While WWII caused us to spend even more money, it was spent on industrial production (not roads and housing projects as in earlier parts of the New Deal), which an industrial society needed to create jobs. Also, we became a massive exporter. We were feeding the war effort of more than just ourselves, and after the war, the industrialized world lay in complete ruins, except the US which was generally safe from attacks on the mainland (Japanese bomb balloons aside). Also, in order for countries to pay for all of that US aid, they had to sell their souls to us at the time. This massively alleviated the structural deficits we were running. The truth is the R's and the D's have their head up their ass with regards to economics and cannot implement economic policy without fucking it up. Either they just don't get it (like Barak and Keynes-inflating away stimulus benefit), or they have to sell out the ideas to too many consituents (Like the R's and rich people---its the middle class dummies). At the end of the day, your partisanship has blinded you to the Democratic implementation of Keynsian economics. Just because they may have guessed correctly in which model to support in this given situation, they are fucking it up. Just the same as Republicans fail to understand what the underlying engine of the economy is, and continue supporting the shift of wealth upward.

MrRodgers -> RE: A tale of two economists (8/26/2011 10:06:53 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Owner59 We were coming out of the depression by the time WWII started. The austerity measures taken by republicans just after the depression hit, prolonged the depression by ten years. There are those that will tell you and with more than a grain of truth that almost immediately, the fed cut off the money supply completely and after it was created due to the fears left over from the 1907 JP Morgan-inspired bank panic...to prevent just that. (6 years 1907-1913, 6,000 private banks failed) So the fed deliberately allowed the remaining 16,000 private banks to fold after the '29 crash. Now the fed could create their monopoly on banking which it did and has caused 1500% inflation since. Also, let us not forget the midwest had the worst drought in 100 years at the very same time.

MrRodgers -> RE: A tale of two economists (8/26/2011 10:19:07 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MileHighM Sam, A couple of things missing from your data. Today is different than that of FDR's, don't forget FDR pinned the dollar to gold. This stabilized US currency and prevented hyper-inflation. Today Obama is monetizing the debt by printing away. This is cratering the value of the dollar. Maybe not relative to other currencies, so much, as they are experiencing inflation too because of similiar global policies, but versus commodities, it is getting creamed. This is not limited to gold but copper, iron, and other commodities as well. I won't discuss oil because that is more or less artificially priced because of cartel style production around the world. Whether or not we experience hyper-inflation or not is yet to be seen, but when you crank up the printing presses you will see inflation, and bad inflation at that. This behavior will only offset any keynsian gain in the long run. That's why FDR pinned the dollar. Finally, something Obama and FDR and most people don't understand about Keynes is that Keynes never perscribed to the notion of structural deficits (We deficit spend in good times and in bad--he only advocated debt in the bad). Structural deficits hurt the government's ability to be the first consumer. Running massive deficits increases the interest liability of the government. As time goes on, the government looses the ability to pay for basic responsibilities forcing it to raise taxes. As they raise taxes, they mearly pull the stimulus back out of economy have a net affect of 0. While I agree with Keynes in principle, I have yet to see it really practiced in the manner true to the theory. Keynes would not call for tax cuts, beacause that would limit the ability of the government to stimulate the economy, but so do structural deficits and thats why he didn't favor such nonsense. Taking on debt without a clear path to get out of it only dooms us in the long run. Keynes, also, wasn't aware that such massive private debt would ever be held as well. I doubt he would even suggest stimulus in a case like our current one. When the private sector is burried in debt up to its eye balls, stimulus will not be spent on new goods and services. It will be spent in an attempt to reduce one's debt. This has no effect on the economy. If the government hoped to stimulate economic growth, it should have just bought stuff and then jambed in a landfill. Our current economic crisis is solely hinged around debt. Money was too cheap for too long and we burried ourselves in debt. Sure interest rates are still low, but who can qualify for loans anymore?!?!?!? If we can eliminate debt (primarily private debt) we can start spending again and getting the economy moving again. With regard to WWII, this is was what kicked us out of the great depression. FDR's own secretary of the treasury admitted in 1941 that all of the spending the government was doing wasn't really making any headway. While WWII caused us to spend even more money, it was spent on industrial production (not roads and housing projects as in earlier parts of the New Deal), which an industrial society needed to create jobs. Also, we became a massive exporter. We were feeding the war effort of more than just ourselves, and after the war, the industrialized world lay in complete ruins, except the US which was generally safe from attacks on the mainland (Japanese bomb balloons aside). Also, in order for countries to pay for all of that US aid, they had to sell their souls to us at the time. This massively alleviated the structural deficits we were running. The truth is the R's and the D's have their head up their ass with regards to economics and cannot implement economic policy without fucking it up. Either they just don't get it (like Barak and Keynes-inflating away stimulus benefit), or they have to sell out the ideas to too many consituents (Like the R's and rich people---its the middle class dummies). At the end of the day, your partisanship has blinded you to the Democratic implementation of Keynsian economics. Just because they may have guessed correctly in which model to support in this given situation, they are fucking it up. Just the same as Republicans fail to understand what the underlying engine of the economy is, and continue supporting the shift of wealth upward. ...'maybe not as compared to other currencies ?' That IS the ONLY value to ANY currency. That defines the 'monetary' system. Why do you and others continue with the outright lie or complete ignorance in stating two things as fact, the dollar is falling...IT IS NOT. We (Obama/Bernanke) are 'printing up money ? BTW FDR's sec. of tres. was flat out wrong as the facts pointed out. With stoke of a pen, FDR put 2-3 million people to work in 90 days. Those were the facts on the ground. Is it too much for such obviously very smart people to figure it out...that the US is NOT, repeat...IS NOT printing money ? BTW FDR's sec of the treasury was flat out wrong and likely

willbeurdaddy -> RE: A tale of two economists (8/26/2011 10:28:21 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: fmfclwu It's much easier to convince Americans that the Austrian prediction that's failing to materialize is actually happening - according to the Austrians, the quantitative easing programs of the Fed should be leading to hyperinflation. This is why you keep reading conservatives warning that hyperinflation is imminent - instead of acknowledging that their theory is failing to predict reality, it must be reality which is failing to match the theory, so there must be some devious conspiracy stopping them from being right. ( You seem fairly knowledgable but have to resort to hyperbole and strawmen to support your position. The Austrians and conservatives have not predicted "hyperinflation", just increasing rates of inflation. And there is an extremely good reason that it hasnt occurred yet. No "conspriacy" is needed. Take a look at the excess reserves in depository institutions. The printed money has not yet hit the economy because nobody wants to borrow, and few want to lend. However, that can't last forever, and in fact there are some signs that excess reserves are starting to go down. They are at something like $1.5 TRILLION....10 times what they were before late 2008. If there is any sort of release of those reserves the fractional reserve multiplier means it is equivalent to 8 to 14 TRILLION injection of cash into the economy...as much as the entire GDP. If you don't think that is WHY inflation has been relatively mild, and you dont believe that that kind of cash injection MUST be inflationary, you arent as knowledgable as you pretend. This is Bernanke's dilemma I referred to earlier, and what I warned this board about after the stimulus. Once that pandora's box is open, it is extremely difficult to reverse. IF the stimulus had produced the economic growth claimed by the Keynesians it would have been hard enough. Verging on a technical new recession any attempt to combat inflation will further exacerbate the economic problems.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: A tale of two economists (8/26/2011 10:32:44 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MileHighM Finally, something Obama and FDR and most people don't understand about Keynes is that Keynes never perscribed to the notion of structural deficits (We deficit spend in good times and in bad--he only advocated debt in the bad). Structural deficits hurt the government's ability to be the first consumer. Running massive deficits increases the interest liability of the government. As time goes on, the government looses the ability to pay for basic responsibilities forcing it to raise taxes. As they raise taxes, they mearly pull the stimulus back out of economy have a net affect of 0. While I agree with Keynes in principle, I have yet to see it really practiced in the manner true to the theory. Keynes would not call for tax cuts, beacause that would limit the ability of the government to stimulate the economy, but so do structural deficits and thats why he didn't favor such nonsense. Taking on debt without a clear path to get out of it only dooms us in the long run. Ahhhh, somebody who understands why I call Obama and his advisors "half-Keynesians".

MrRodgers -> RE: A tale of two economists (8/26/2011 10:50:52 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy The economist about to be roasted is Bernanke. The money pumped into the system is about to explode into inflation unless steps are taken to pull that money back...and no matter what form the pullback takes it will be a major fucking problem. Either it will sink us back into recession/depression or devastate the financial industry the money was used to bailout. Astounding such clairvoyance. Sure wish I knew the future like you, especially when there are no facts or extrapolation of fact...to support your clear (cloudy) view of the future. Just where is this inflation going to come from ? There are no additional dollars in circulation (the real culprit) chasing fewer goods that have little or no demand upon them anyway. Just as in the 30's, consumers have no discretionary, non-debt demand left. So just where is this inflation going to come from ? The world is still married to the dollar and until there is a complete 1-2 years long divorce...you and others keep proclaiming this bullshit just to again, denigrate Obama's policies without any foundation in fact. Furthermore, it should be obvious that the banking/financial industry will survive just fine. Almost all of [it] has a single payer govt. run 'health' insurance program (FDIC) that can run to the federal taxpayer for yet...another bailout if necessary and it looks as if the ongoing failures will require more money. You see...bankers are western civilization's and the world's richest socialists and like the communist hierarchy of the past...'too big to fail.' Plus, to get right down to it, let's say we have inflation. If I am a banker/investor-class power broker, I don't give a shit. let there be inflation for you, it will hardly even dent me. Inflation can be very, very profitable. Being among the west's opulent few, I simply don't give a fuck what happens as long as this country is here. Gas could be $10/gal, a house $500,000, meat $10/lb, I don't give a shit. My kids and their kids and their kids will still be able to play and ...for their entire lives.

Rule -> RE: A tale of two economists (8/26/2011 10:53:11 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: StrangerThan unless maybe we can mine the new diamond planet That alleged planet does not exist. As for economics, it seems to me that everyone who is unemployed is a loss to the wealth production of a population. I do note that there are various kinds of wealths: food wealth, material wealth, safety and security wealth, art wealth, health wealth, sports wealth, scientific wealth, scholarship wealth.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: A tale of two economists (8/26/2011 11:02:14 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers Astounding such clairvoyance. Sure wish I knew the future like you, especially when there are no facts or extrapolation of fact...to support your clear (cloudy) view of the future. Just where is this inflation going to come from ? No clairvoyance needed, just simple math and history. You are wrong that there was "no money printed", it was...it just hasnt hit the economy YET because of Obama's anti-business policies. See #15.

mnottertail -> RE: A tale of two economists (8/26/2011 11:06:27 AM)
Which appears to be a very good thing, now it appears that he should windfall tax the living fuck out of these corps sitting on the money. solves inflationary pressure and in one fell swoop, cuts the debt.

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625