quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic
32 trillion dollars in safe havens is not feeding the economy
its not the poor hiding their money.

Where is this $32T hiding? Is it in mattresses? Buried? Or, is it "hidden" in financial institutions? Do you know how financial institutions make money?

do your research, its actually quite easy, you want answers to your questions, look for them yourself

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
What is happening in those offshore accounts and tax havens? Is that money literally just sitting there?

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Since we seem to be living in a "global" economy, the effects of money outside the US still does help the US's economy.

quote:

from what I read, though estimates vary, there is between 12 and 40 trillion

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

MV = PQ.


This of course is an oversimplification of realities, each of those letters (and I am in some close agreement with MM) is in and of itself in the real world a very very very complex googleplex of variables.

Here is a crystal clear demonstration of why.

let M remain constant, if we increase the velocity of money by say paying every man, woman, and child that gets money (no matter the source, welfare payments, wages, contract fulfillments and so on, just money) from once a contract, or once a month to weekly or (since it is an oversimplification, daily) it is prima facie tautology that the velocity of money will increase (DoUCY?) but that is not to boost it from 12 to 52 in the case of a monthly payout to a weekly payout. So, with the other variables, boost the shit out of production....supposedly we have with great efficiencies.........and that has added to the economy, but is there an y=mx + b relationship here? Nope.


The point is, there is no point here, and no magic.

Well what you describe is not on point. With the concentration of wealth, i.e., more money in fewer hands spending (over all consumption) is thus lowered and demand is lowered. Demand for production is down, jobs are down.

With more money say through a raise in min, wage in worker's lands i.e., more hands, they create a greater demand as that money will be spent and thus dollar velocity increases. More money in far more (labor/jobs) hands and soon...more money in more hands and the cycle continues.

It is just that in addition to the GI Bill and VA lending cycle that drove demand post WWII. Dollar velocity was at or near its highest.

I am talking about the rate at which money is exchanged from one transaction to another, and how much a unit of currency is used in a given period of time. More money in more hands increases the volume of those transactions and the speed at which the same money (dollar) moves through circulation. (economy)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

quote:

ORIGINAL: hot4bondage

Bob Dylan, this month's AARP cover boy(!), weighs in on the 1% in a new interview. Statists aren't going to like what he had to say.

http://www.aarp.org/entertainment/style-trends/info-2015/bob-dylan-aarp-magazine.3.html

We all do at certain points, but it’s like water — it slips through your hands. As long as there’s suffering, you can only be so happy. How can a person be happy if he has misfortune? Some wealthy billionaire who can buy 30 cars and maybe buy a sports team, is that guy happy? What then would make him happier? Does it make him happy giving his money away to foreign countries? Is there more contentment in that than in giving it here to the inner cities and creating jobs?
The government’s not going to create jobs. It doesn’t have to. People have to create jobs, and these big billionaires are the ones who can do it. We don’t see that happening. We see crime and inner cities exploding with people who have nothing to do, turning to drink and drugs. They could all have work created for them by all these hotshot billionaires. For sure that would create lot of happiness. Now, I’m not saying they have to — I’m not talking about communism — but what do they do with their money? Do they use it in virtuous ways?

Q: So they should be moving their focus here instead of …

A: Well, I think they should, yeah, because there are a lot of things that are wrong in America, and especially in the inner cities, that they could solve. Those are dangerous grounds, and they don’t have to be. There are good people there, but they’ve been oppressed by lack of work. Those people can all be working at something. These multibillionaires can create industries right here in America. But no one can tell them what to do. God’s got to lead them.

Q: And productive work is a kind of salvation in your view? To feel pride in what you do?

A: Absolutely.

I am unsure if your partial quote of Dylans words was due to ignorance or stupidity, so i have added it to your post and BOLDED it.

Either way your post completely changed the context as to what he was actually saying.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44
this page here shows the heart of the matter for every single issue occurring in the forum and I hope everyone will please read it.
the question then becomes, how to take two very different and competing sides and have them live together.
http://news-basics.com/2010/liberal-vs-conservative-values/
for my part---and I hope what I am about to say here doesn't discourage anyone from reading that webpage, I just wish all the liberals would move to Sweden, or cuba, or china...
and yes, cuba's doing great...that's why so many of their citizens risk death on the open seas to come to America (economic freedom anyone?) or why people who live there (and other socialist countries) seek high end health care in the more capitalistic countries.

The problem with that link is that it is wrong. The so-called conservative role for govt. has been to bail out banks that as a result...hardly play in a 'free' market. Same thing with all other forms of collective rather than free market insurance.
What the conservatives should suggest is that if a banker can't 'be responsible for themselves' just like you and me, govt. has no business in bailing them out.
YET that's what 'conservatives' are all too eager to do. It's called socialism for the rich...capitalism for the poor and the same goes for the whole banking system, investor support and agriculture.
Modern conservative values would have us believe that if a sick patient can't 'be responsible for themselves' they can just go ahead and die. I say let the banking system die. Does anyone know for a fact the economy would have been any worse ?
Our founding fathers...conservatives all, would have sent those wall street bankers home...tarred feathered and bankrupt. They'd tell farmers who couldn't make a living in farming...to get out of farming. They'd tell anyone who invests overseas...do so at their own risk.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: hot4bondage

I removed his questions about the nature of happiness for brevity. Adding them does not add context to his outright dismissal of Communism.

"Now, I’m not saying they have to — I’m not talking about communism..."

"These multibillionaires can create industries right here in America. But no one can tell them what to do."

Dylan quotes can be fun to interpret, but those two sound pretty unequivocal to me. He's not a Communist.

quote:

ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
What is happening in those offshore accounts and tax havens? Is that money literally just sitting there?

Yes!
It earns money for that individual/company, not the local native economy.
The returns from the investment go straight back to the source.

quote:

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Since we seem to be living in a "global" economy, the effects of money outside the US still does help the US's economy.

Only if those outside the US decide to invest in the US.
If a Chinese billionaire invests their wealth in a Chinese or African project, does it benefit the US or anyone else beyond the investment? No, it doesn't.
It's not a global economy per se, but more of a global collaboration for trade.
If certain people don't invest in the US, the US don't gain a single red cent in taxes, other revenue, or the US economy in general.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

Minimum wages not only need imposition, they need strengthening.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
What is happening in those offshore accounts and tax havens? Is that money literally just sitting there?

Yes!
It earns money for that individual/company, not the local native economy.
The returns from the investment go straight back to the source.

How is it earning money?

quote:

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Since we seem to be living in a "global" economy, the effects of money outside the US still does help the US's economy.

Only if those outside the US decide to invest in the US.
If a Chinese billionaire invests their wealth in a Chinese or African project, does it benefit the US or anyone else beyond the investment? No, it doesn't.
It's not a global economy per se, but more of a global collaboration for trade.
If certain people don't invest in the US, the US don't gain a single red cent in taxes, other revenue, or the US economy in general.

Yep, a global "collaboration for trade." Investments in China have created cheaper goods for consumers in the US. Who knew?!?

I'm shocked you're not understanding of that.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44
this page here shows the heart of the matter for every single issue occurring in the forum and I hope everyone will please read it.
the question then becomes, how to take two very different and competing sides and have them live together.
http://news-basics.com/2010/liberal-vs-conservative-values/
for my part---and I hope what I am about to say here doesn't discourage anyone from reading that webpage, I just wish all the liberals would move to Sweden, or cuba, or china...
and yes, cuba's doing great...that's why so many of their citizens risk death on the open seas to come to America (economic freedom anyone?) or why people who live there (and other socialist countries) seek high end health care in the more capitalistic countries.

The problem with that link is that it is wrong. The so-called conservative role for govt. has been to bail out banks that as a result...hardly play in a 'free' market. Same thing with all other forms of collective rather than free market insurance.
What the conservatives should suggest is that if a banker can't 'be responsible for themselves' just like you and me, govt. has no business in bailing them out.
YET that's what 'conservatives' are all too eager to do. It's called socialism for the rich...capitalism for the poor and the same goes for the whole banking system, investor support and agriculture.
Modern conservative values would have us believe that if a sick patient can't 'be responsible for themselves' they can just go ahead and die. I say let the banking system die. Does anyone know for a fact the economy would have been any worse ?
Our founding fathers...conservatives all, would have sent those wall street bankers home...tarred feathered and bankrupt. They'd tell farmers who couldn't make a living in farming...to get out of farming. They'd tell anyone who invests overseas...do so at their own risk.

I wasn't here until 2010, so I don't know what the tenor was on these boards back then. Bush's bailout of Bear Stearns was such a grossly non-Conservative action that it woke me out of my political stupor.

The bailouts were not Conservative actions.

I gotta wonder, though, were the Liberals in Congress (who were in charge of both houses, if you recall) supportive of that stuff, or opposed?

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

MV = PQ.


This of course is an oversimplification of realities, each of those letters (and I am in some close agreement with MM) is in and of itself in the real world a very very very complex googleplex of variables.

Here is a crystal clear demonstration of why.

let M remain constant, if we increase the velocity of money by say paying every man, woman, and child that gets money (no matter the source, welfare payments, wages, contract fulfillments and so on, just money) from once a contract, or once a month to weekly or (since it is an oversimplification, daily) it is prima facie tautology that the velocity of money will increase (DoUCY?) but that is not to boost it from 12 to 52 in the case of a monthly payout to a weekly payout. So, with the other variables, boost the shit out of production....supposedly we have with great efficiencies.........and that has added to the economy, but is there an y=mx + b relationship here? Nope.


The point is, there is no point here, and no magic.

Well what you describe is not on point. With the concentration of wealth, i.e., more money in fewer hands spending (over all consumption) is thus lowered and demand is lowered. Demand for production is down, jobs are down.

With more money say through a raise in min, wage in worker's lands i.e., more hands, they create a greater demand as that money will be spent and thus dollar velocity increases. More money in far more (labor/jobs) hands and soon...more money in more hands and the cycle continues.

It is just that in addition to the GI Bill and VA lending cycle that drove demand post WWII. Dollar velocity was at or near its highest.

I am talking about the rate at which money is exchanged from one transaction to another, and how much a unit of currency is used in a given period of time. More money in more hands increases the volume of those transactions and the speed at which the same money (dollar) moves through circulation. (economy)

Oh, we don't disagree at all. I just did a little bit of V. Here is a little monograph on M.

Quantitative Easing has loaded a great deal of M in the economy but if they are not lending it (and they are not, they are buying back their stock on the cheap, keeping it in the vaults and as we have discussed here and elsewhere sticking it in offshore havens) our velocity of those transactions is zero, thus (and this axiom cannot be fucked with in any way...) M * 0 = 0. Thats for that rather huge slice.

If you have an apartment house where rent is a grand or better a month, and minimum wage is at 7.25 we have more M * 0 = 0. There are vast bits of M that is 0 (because of stats and the generalities of M (cuz it isn't subtracted correctly from M all that offshoring and out of the country and idling in banks......)

And guess what? Unemployment checks is money, social security is money, welfare checks is money, and it does raise velocity. Even taxes is money, cuz as we all can see, it gets spent.

But tax subsidies and reduced rates is not always M, as I point out. If it was, we would all be wearing fur.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

from what I read, though estimates vary, there is between 12 and 40 trillion

And that didn't suggest to you that your information isn't very reliable?

M2 is around $60 trillion, and M3 around $75 trillion. But that's just money -- total U.S. assets are about $225 trillion.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
What is happening in those offshore accounts and tax havens? Is that money literally just sitting there?

Yes!
It earns money for that individual/company, not the local native economy.
The returns from the investment go straight back to the source.

How is it earning money?

quote:

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Since we seem to be living in a "global" economy, the effects of money outside the US still does help the US's economy.

Only if those outside the US decide to invest in the US.
If a Chinese billionaire invests their wealth in a Chinese or African project, does it benefit the US or anyone else beyond the investment? No, it doesn't.
It's not a global economy per se, but more of a global collaboration for trade.
If certain people don't invest in the US, the US don't gain a single red cent in taxes, other revenue, or the US economy in general.

Yep, a global "collaboration for trade." Investments in China have created cheaper goods for consumers in the US. Who knew?!?
I'm shocked you're not understanding of that.

And where are all of those jobs magically produced (replaced) so that those who lost theirs...could afford those 'cheap' goods ?

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44
this page here shows the heart of the matter for every single issue occurring in the forum and I hope everyone will please read it.
the question then becomes, how to take two very different and competing sides and have them live together.
http://news-basics.com/2010/liberal-vs-conservative-values/
for my part---and I hope what I am about to say here doesn't discourage anyone from reading that webpage, I just wish all the liberals would move to Sweden, or cuba, or china...
and yes, cuba's doing great...that's why so many of their citizens risk death on the open seas to come to America (economic freedom anyone?) or why people who live there (and other socialist countries) seek high end health care in the more capitalistic countries.

The problem with that link is that it is wrong. The so-called conservative role for govt. has been to bail out banks that as a result...hardly play in a 'free' market. Same thing with all other forms of collective rather than free market insurance.
What the conservatives should suggest is that if a banker can't 'be responsible for themselves' just like you and me, govt. has no business in bailing them out.
YET that's what 'conservatives' are all too eager to do. It's called socialism for the rich...capitalism for the poor and the same goes for the whole banking system, investor support and agriculture.
Modern conservative values would have us believe that if a sick patient can't 'be responsible for themselves' they can just go ahead and die. I say let the banking system die. Does anyone know for a fact the economy would have been any worse ?
Our founding fathers...conservatives all, would have sent those wall street bankers home...tarred feathered and bankrupt. They'd tell farmers who couldn't make a living in farming...to get out of farming. They'd tell anyone who invests overseas...do so at their own risk.

I wasn't here until 2010, so I don't know what the tenor was on these boards back then. Bush's bailout of Bear Stearns was such a grossly non-Conservative action that it woke me out of my political stupor.
The bailouts were not Conservative actions.
I gotta wonder, though, were the Liberals in Congress (who were in charge of both houses, if you recall) supportive of that stuff, or opposed?

The first vote was against but a dem congressman said that W then threatened martial law.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)