JavaScript is required to use Bungie.net

OffTopic

Surf a Flood of random discussion.
11/14/2012 6:20:57 AM
48

After taking Macroeconomics

I must wonder, if there's so many economists that known that's wrong with the economy of a country such as United States, why don't they fix it? This [url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PTUY16CkS-k]video (kind of funny actually)[/url] explains a lot of things and the problems that needs to be fix and etc. I mean, it seems to me it is so obvious what we need to do after just taking an introductory course to macroeconomics, I mean, now I know not to spend $800 billion on a stimulus legislation that will hardly stimulate anything. What do you guys think? Any of you took a micro/macro economic course before and had your mind changed after finishing it?
English
#Offtopic #Flood

Posting in language:

 

Play nice. Take a minute to review our Code of Conduct before submitting your post. Cancel Edit Create Fireteam Post

View Entire Topic
  • [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] theHurtfulTurkey [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Mr Libertarian [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] theHurtfulTurkey [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Mr Libertarian Also, stimulation worsens the economy.[/quote] Yeah, increasing the money supply, there's no way that could help promote GDP growth...[/quote] Look theory is that every dollar the government spends is income for someone who, when he spends that income, provides income for another person. This is the Keynesian multiplier effect. The Government gets this money from taxing, borrowing, and inflating money. When the Government does these things, the regions of Jobs are destroyed and then new areas have artificial jobs. There has been no proof over economic growth and stimulus. Why? Because art.boom = art.bust + the new amount of debt (or inflation) that the country receives.[/quote] Which has nothing to do with the fact that government spending on the private sector, barring a previous increase in taxes, adds to the money supply. Of course there's a smart way to do it, but you're implying that the government is increasing taxes just to dish it back out for stimulus money, when in reality (notably in the Bush stimulus), the point of the bill is to put some of the money back into the economy. I'm not supporting Keynesian nonsense, but stimulus measures are certainly not anti-capitalist.[/quote] Again, I said there are three ways for the Stimulus program to work: - Inflating - Borrowing (refer to 1 and 3) - Taxing But since the government already has income tax and other programs, they already insured a dry well. (Fun fact: Income tax was enforced the same year the Federal Reserve was made) #1_ Inflating is something I covered, no need to explain again unless you ask for it. #2_ We borrow from the same banks that we loan to them at extremely low assets bought by the GoldmanSachs and ask for extremely high interest rates in bonds. (BTW, the person who authorizes this is the head chaiman of the New York branch of the federal reserve, he worked for Goldman Sachs). Then in return, we invest in bubbles or made bubbles that soon failed. Internet bubble, College bubble, Housing bubble...and so on! #3 _ Government already taxes too much, and they won't think about taxing more. You are speaking like a keynesian and also a Cronyist (or Crony). Keynesian: Make a quick jumpstart and then a big crash. Crony: Cooperation of State and Corporations. Why do you believe that their was a snap in 1972 on money? Why is that their was a roaring boom in 20's and then a depression? Now we are heading to a recession [i]again[/i], but I already know the consequences of what's going to happen. Solution: Allow the free market to do what's necessary: The free market knows what industry is a boom and which one isn't. Allow multiple currencies for competition. Reduce taxes so there will be more spending on the market. Audit the Fed, then end it. Also, [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Stage_IV Mr. Libertarian, have you read Human Action or Man, Economy, and State? I'm a Voluntaryist myself. [/quote] Both, but I prefer Mises over Rothbard due to the fact that Mises is more Pragmatic; not a believer in anarch-capitalism.

    Posting in language:

     

    Play nice. Take a minute to review our Code of Conduct before submitting your post. Cancel Edit Create Fireteam Post

You are not allowed to view this content.
;
preload icon
preload icon
preload icon