Must spend more money...
-
Because taking money away from productive people and giving it to non-productive people to spend is certain to grow the economy! [^] When non-productive people spend money they did not earn it always helps more than when the people who did earn it freely decide to spend it or not! Or, something like that... I'm sure someone understands how all this works. Carson?
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
That is what you have been doing for years. Where do you guys think Wall Street took the money for their parties?
-
The US is already printing money like it's nothing. That's why my pay went down 10% in the last month or so.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. "I am new to programming world. I have been learning c# for about past four weeks. I am quite acquainted with the fundamentals of c#. Now I have to work on a project which converts given flat files to XML using the XML serialization method" - SK64 ( but the forums have stuff like this posted every day )
Christian Graus wrote:
The US is already printing money like it's nothing. That's why my pay went down 10% in the last month or so.
:confused:
John Carson
-
Because taking money away from productive people and giving it to non-productive people to spend is certain to grow the economy! [^] When non-productive people spend money they did not earn it always helps more than when the people who did earn it freely decide to spend it or not! Or, something like that... I'm sure someone understands how all this works. Carson?
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
My personal belief is that Obama is the next Jimmy Carter. Only worse.
-Sean ---- It's not that I like expensive things, it's just that the things I like are expensive. - My Wife
-
Because taking money away from productive people and giving it to non-productive people to spend is certain to grow the economy! [^] When non-productive people spend money they did not earn it always helps more than when the people who did earn it freely decide to spend it or not! Or, something like that... I'm sure someone understands how all this works. Carson?
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
When non-productive people spend money they did not earn it always helps more than when the people who did earn it freely decide to spend it or not! Or, something like that... I'm sure someone understands how all this works. Carson?
1. One person's spending is another person's income. Whether the spender is productive or unproductive makes no difference in terms of the income benefit to the recipient. 2. Additional spending isn't always beneficial, but it is beneficial when the basic economic problem is a general lack of demand. The following is enlightening for the prepared mind: http://www.slate.com/id/1937/[^]
John Carson
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
When non-productive people spend money they did not earn it always helps more than when the people who did earn it freely decide to spend it or not! Or, something like that... I'm sure someone understands how all this works. Carson?
1. One person's spending is another person's income. Whether the spender is productive or unproductive makes no difference in terms of the income benefit to the recipient. 2. Additional spending isn't always beneficial, but it is beneficial when the basic economic problem is a general lack of demand. The following is enlightening for the prepared mind: http://www.slate.com/id/1937/[^]
John Carson
Nice article. Thanks!
-Sean ---- It's not that I like expensive things, it's just that the things I like are expensive. - My Wife
-
The US is already printing money like it's nothing. That's why my pay went down 10% in the last month or so.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. "I am new to programming world. I have been learning c# for about past four weeks. I am quite acquainted with the fundamentals of c#. Now I have to work on a project which converts given flat files to XML using the XML serialization method" - SK64 ( but the forums have stuff like this posted every day )
Christian Graus wrote:
The US is already printing money like it's nothing. That's why my pay went down 10% in the last month or so.
I told you so, but you said as long as you had money nothing else mattered.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
When non-productive people spend money they did not earn it always helps more than when the people who did earn it freely decide to spend it or not! Or, something like that... I'm sure someone understands how all this works. Carson?
1. One person's spending is another person's income. Whether the spender is productive or unproductive makes no difference in terms of the income benefit to the recipient. 2. Additional spending isn't always beneficial, but it is beneficial when the basic economic problem is a general lack of demand. The following is enlightening for the prepared mind: http://www.slate.com/id/1937/[^]
John Carson
John Carson wrote:
general lack of demand.
So if a lack of demand for the products and services that people normally buy is the problem, how is the solution to spend money hiring more government workers and give out billions and billions to banks who are just going to stash it away or send it overseas going to help the economy?
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
When non-productive people spend money they did not earn it always helps more than when the people who did earn it freely decide to spend it or not! Or, something like that... I'm sure someone understands how all this works. Carson?
1. One person's spending is another person's income. Whether the spender is productive or unproductive makes no difference in terms of the income benefit to the recipient. 2. Additional spending isn't always beneficial, but it is beneficial when the basic economic problem is a general lack of demand. The following is enlightening for the prepared mind: http://www.slate.com/id/1937/[^]
John Carson
John Carson wrote:
1. One person's spending is another person's income. Whether the spender is productive or unproductive makes no difference in terms of the income benefit to the recipient.
True... For that single transaction. However, for the many who had their hard earned money taken away to be tossed at losers who wanted to upgrade from mouth wash to actual booze, they'll be reluctant to spend for some time to come. But then again, that's just the kind of negative cycle that politicians, especially those on the left, like because they're specifically designed to make more and more people dependant on them. But sure, that one transaction could be just as spedulous as any other. And probably more so, since the kind of person that has no problem spending somebody else's money will do so far more freely than the guy who actually earned it.
Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.
-
Christian Graus wrote:
The US is already printing money like it's nothing. That's why my pay went down 10% in the last month or so.
:confused:
John Carson
I get paid in USD, which converts to AUD on the way to my bank. The dollar was at .62, and everyone was predicting .50. Which has occurred before. In the space of a week, we were up to .74 or so. So, as the USD drops in value, my wage in AUD drops, my wage in USD stays the same.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. "I am new to programming world. I have been learning c# for about past four weeks. I am quite acquainted with the fundamentals of c#. Now I have to work on a project which converts given flat files to XML using the XML serialization method" - SK64 ( but the forums have stuff like this posted every day )
-
Christian Graus wrote:
The US is already printing money like it's nothing. That's why my pay went down 10% in the last month or so.
I told you so, but you said as long as you had money nothing else mattered.
I am certain that I make more in two months than you've ever made in a year. I am not hurting in the slightest, it's more of an inconvenience. The worst of it is 'I'd like to go to Europe and now maybe I'll go to Queensland'. But, I think we'll still go to Europe. Have you ever left Ohio ?
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. "I am new to programming world. I have been learning c# for about past four weeks. I am quite acquainted with the fundamentals of c#. Now I have to work on a project which converts given flat files to XML using the XML serialization method" - SK64 ( but the forums have stuff like this posted every day )
-
I am certain that I make more in two months than you've ever made in a year. I am not hurting in the slightest, it's more of an inconvenience. The worst of it is 'I'd like to go to Europe and now maybe I'll go to Queensland'. But, I think we'll still go to Europe. Have you ever left Ohio ?
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. "I am new to programming world. I have been learning c# for about past four weeks. I am quite acquainted with the fundamentals of c#. Now I have to work on a project which converts given flat files to XML using the XML serialization method" - SK64 ( but the forums have stuff like this posted every day )
Christian Graus wrote:
Have you ever left Ohio ?
Sure, I've driven to most of the neighboring states. Home is where I'd rather be.
-
Christian Graus wrote:
Have you ever left Ohio ?
Sure, I've driven to most of the neighboring states. Home is where I'd rather be.
Yeah, I'd rather end up at home, too. But, it's good to spread one's wings and see how people live elsewhere. I've been to Singapore, NZ, about 1/2 the states in the USA, Canada, and every state in Australia. Oh, and Fiji, Vanuatu, Noumea, and a ton of those smaller islands.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. "I am new to programming world. I have been learning c# for about past four weeks. I am quite acquainted with the fundamentals of c#. Now I have to work on a project which converts given flat files to XML using the XML serialization method" - SK64 ( but the forums have stuff like this posted every day )
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
When non-productive people spend money they did not earn it always helps more than when the people who did earn it freely decide to spend it or not! Or, something like that... I'm sure someone understands how all this works. Carson?
1. One person's spending is another person's income. Whether the spender is productive or unproductive makes no difference in terms of the income benefit to the recipient. 2. Additional spending isn't always beneficial, but it is beneficial when the basic economic problem is a general lack of demand. The following is enlightening for the prepared mind: http://www.slate.com/id/1937/[^]
John Carson
John Carson wrote:
1. One person's spending is another person's income. Whether the spender is productive or unproductive makes no difference in terms of the income benefit to the recipient.
That is proof of the economic insanity of these principles. The second person's income is being confiscated one way or another to give to the first person so that he can give it to the second person so that it can be confiscated to give to the first person. If no useful economic multiplyer is genrerated somewhere in that exchange, it is a cycle that must spiral in a donward direction. Sooner or later, the second person is going to have no income left to confiscate to give to the first person so that the second person can have an income that can be confiscated.
John Carson wrote:
2. Additional spending isn't always beneficial, but it is beneficial when the basic economic problem is a general lack of demand.
Wealth does not disappear just because it isn't being spent. If investments are respectec, it simply finds a different route into the economy based on the preferences of millions of individual people acting in their own self interest. If your principles were correct, why not just give the people who have money to spend a tax break for spending it? That is, for every ten dollars I spend, I get a ten dollar tax break on my taxes? Why wouldn't that stimulate the economy at least as well as the government giving it to ner-do-wells to spend?
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
That is what you have been doing for years. Where do you guys think Wall Street took the money for their parties?
Le Centriste wrote:
That is what you have been doing for years.
Than why hasn't it been working?
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
I get paid in USD, which converts to AUD on the way to my bank. The dollar was at .62, and everyone was predicting .50. Which has occurred before. In the space of a week, we were up to .74 or so. So, as the USD drops in value, my wage in AUD drops, my wage in USD stays the same.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. "I am new to programming world. I have been learning c# for about past four weeks. I am quite acquainted with the fundamentals of c#. Now I have to work on a project which converts given flat files to XML using the XML serialization method" - SK64 ( but the forums have stuff like this posted every day )
Christian Graus wrote:
I get paid in USD, which converts to AUD on the way to my bank. The dollar was at .62, and everyone was predicting .50. Which has occurred before. In the space of a week, we were up to .74 or so. So, as the USD drops in value, my wage in AUD drops, my wage in USD stays the same.
OK, but what happened is more a matter of a rise in the Australian dollar than a fall in the US dollar since the value of the US dollar did not fall nearly as much against most other currencies. From May 4 to May 12, the value of the Euro went from 1.32 to 1.36 US dollars. The movement in the Japanese Yen was similar. Exchange rates fluctuate and do so under multiple influences.
John Carson
-
John Carson wrote:
1. One person's spending is another person's income. Whether the spender is productive or unproductive makes no difference in terms of the income benefit to the recipient.
That is proof of the economic insanity of these principles. The second person's income is being confiscated one way or another to give to the first person so that he can give it to the second person so that it can be confiscated to give to the first person. If no useful economic multiplyer is genrerated somewhere in that exchange, it is a cycle that must spiral in a donward direction. Sooner or later, the second person is going to have no income left to confiscate to give to the first person so that the second person can have an income that can be confiscated.
John Carson wrote:
2. Additional spending isn't always beneficial, but it is beneficial when the basic economic problem is a general lack of demand.
Wealth does not disappear just because it isn't being spent. If investments are respectec, it simply finds a different route into the economy based on the preferences of millions of individual people acting in their own self interest. If your principles were correct, why not just give the people who have money to spend a tax break for spending it? That is, for every ten dollars I spend, I get a ten dollar tax break on my taxes? Why wouldn't that stimulate the economy at least as well as the government giving it to ner-do-wells to spend?
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
The second person's income is being confiscated one way or another to give to the first person so that he can give it to the second person so that it can be confiscated to give to the first person.
No, it is being borrowed. Borrowing from person 2 so that person 1 can spend is a normal part of the functioning of the economy. But when it breaks down, the government needs to step in to keep the thing functioning.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Wealth does not disappear just because it isn't being spent.
No, but income does.
Stan Shannon wrote:
If your principles were correct, why not just give the people who have money to spend a tax break for spending it? That is, for every ten dollars I spend, I get a ten dollar tax break on my taxes? Why wouldn't that stimulate the economy at least as well as the government giving it to ner-do-wells to spend?
This whole "ner-do-wells" thing is largely cant. The recipients of government money are teachers, road workers, soldiers... But as to your main point, in principle tax breaks in return for spending could work. The difficulty is in the implementation. How is the government to know that you are spending $10 more than you otherwise would? In practice, the government typically gives tax breaks unconditionally, and the cut in taxes tends to be substantially more than the increase in spending that it induces. Direct government spending gives the most stimulus for the buck, but the problem here is that a lot of programs (infrastructure etc.) take time to get started.
John Carson
-
I am certain that I make more in two months than you've ever made in a year. I am not hurting in the slightest, it's more of an inconvenience. The worst of it is 'I'd like to go to Europe and now maybe I'll go to Queensland'. But, I think we'll still go to Europe. Have you ever left Ohio ?
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. "I am new to programming world. I have been learning c# for about past four weeks. I am quite acquainted with the fundamentals of c#. Now I have to work on a project which converts given flat files to XML using the XML serialization method" - SK64 ( but the forums have stuff like this posted every day )
Christian Graus wrote:
But, I think we'll still go to Europe.
When you are going? I have to go to Amsterdam again for work in July so rather than have a family holiday in the pacific as we'd been planning they're going to come with me and we'll have a few weeks traveling from Holland to France, Switzerland, Italy and possibly Monaco. Cant wait!
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
The second person's income is being confiscated one way or another to give to the first person so that he can give it to the second person so that it can be confiscated to give to the first person.
No, it is being borrowed. Borrowing from person 2 so that person 1 can spend is a normal part of the functioning of the economy. But when it breaks down, the government needs to step in to keep the thing functioning.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Wealth does not disappear just because it isn't being spent.
No, but income does.
Stan Shannon wrote:
If your principles were correct, why not just give the people who have money to spend a tax break for spending it? That is, for every ten dollars I spend, I get a ten dollar tax break on my taxes? Why wouldn't that stimulate the economy at least as well as the government giving it to ner-do-wells to spend?
This whole "ner-do-wells" thing is largely cant. The recipients of government money are teachers, road workers, soldiers... But as to your main point, in principle tax breaks in return for spending could work. The difficulty is in the implementation. How is the government to know that you are spending $10 more than you otherwise would? In practice, the government typically gives tax breaks unconditionally, and the cut in taxes tends to be substantially more than the increase in spending that it induces. Direct government spending gives the most stimulus for the buck, but the problem here is that a lot of programs (infrastructure etc.) take time to get started.
John Carson
John Carson wrote:
Borrowing from person 2 so that person 1 can spend is a normal part of the functioning of the economy.
Forced borrowing is often referred to by other terms. But let that go; in this case, what we have is Obama borrowing but not promising to pay it back - instead, he's setting up a situation where kids now unable to vote, will find themselves on the hook for trillions of dollars. I have written him a note suggesting that rather than promising my kids' futures, he promise them yours. ;)
John Carson wrote:
Direct government spending gives the most stimulus for the buck, but the problem here is that a lot of programs (infrastructure etc.) take time to get started.
Many years, in fact. It seems that much of our "stimulus" package will not be spent until 2011 or some not until 2012. Meanwhile our unemployment figures continue to hit new highs and no-one, anywhere in the states including any level of government, is pointing to a rash of new hires and saying, "See - this is because of the stimulus package!" Edit I forgot: there was one class of police cadets who were going to be let go instead of being offered jobs upon graduation, who, the mayor of some city or other said, were going to have jobs for at least a year because of the stimulus. /Edit
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
modified on Tuesday, May 12, 2009 9:02 PM
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
The second person's income is being confiscated one way or another to give to the first person so that he can give it to the second person so that it can be confiscated to give to the first person.
No, it is being borrowed. Borrowing from person 2 so that person 1 can spend is a normal part of the functioning of the economy. But when it breaks down, the government needs to step in to keep the thing functioning.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Wealth does not disappear just because it isn't being spent.
No, but income does.
Stan Shannon wrote:
If your principles were correct, why not just give the people who have money to spend a tax break for spending it? That is, for every ten dollars I spend, I get a ten dollar tax break on my taxes? Why wouldn't that stimulate the economy at least as well as the government giving it to ner-do-wells to spend?
This whole "ner-do-wells" thing is largely cant. The recipients of government money are teachers, road workers, soldiers... But as to your main point, in principle tax breaks in return for spending could work. The difficulty is in the implementation. How is the government to know that you are spending $10 more than you otherwise would? In practice, the government typically gives tax breaks unconditionally, and the cut in taxes tends to be substantially more than the increase in spending that it induces. Direct government spending gives the most stimulus for the buck, but the problem here is that a lot of programs (infrastructure etc.) take time to get started.
John Carson
John Carson wrote:
No, it is being borrowed. Borrowing from person 2 so that person 1 can spend is a normal part of the functioning of the economy.
Or, as I said, confiscated. If it were being 'borrowed' person two would be charging interest for person one being allowed the priviledge of useing his wealth. Thats where the whole 'respect' for investment comes in at....
John Carson wrote:
No, but income does.
No, it just means someone has to actually do something productive to earn the investment rather than just having it handed to them for doing nothing. That is precisely what causes an economy to actually grow wealth.
John Carson wrote:
This whole "ner-do-wells" thing is largely cant. The recipients of government money are teachers, road workers, soldiers...
No, actually, they are mostly ner-do-wells. It is just that the economic inefficiency your princiles create force otherwise productive people into the same class as the ner-do-wells - which is really your goal, after all - make as many people as possible econommically dependent upon you so that you can control their culture from the center.
John Carson wrote:
But as to your main point, in principle tax breaks in return for spending could work. The difficulty is in the implementation. How is the government to know that you are spending $10 more than you otherwise would?
Keep your receipts. It isn't a matter of spending more, it is just a matter of spending. The more I spend, the more tax money I save, which gives me more money to spend. See? It is a perfect system.
John Carson wrote:
Direct government spending gives the most stimulus for the buck
No, as a matter of fact, it does just the opposite. People spending and investing their own money in their own way gives the the biggist bang for the buck. Otherwise, the USSR would have won the cold war, and Cuba would be the richest nation on the planet.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
John Carson wrote:
Borrowing from person 2 so that person 1 can spend is a normal part of the functioning of the economy.
Forced borrowing is often referred to by other terms. But let that go; in this case, what we have is Obama borrowing but not promising to pay it back - instead, he's setting up a situation where kids now unable to vote, will find themselves on the hook for trillions of dollars. I have written him a note suggesting that rather than promising my kids' futures, he promise them yours. ;)
John Carson wrote:
Direct government spending gives the most stimulus for the buck, but the problem here is that a lot of programs (infrastructure etc.) take time to get started.
Many years, in fact. It seems that much of our "stimulus" package will not be spent until 2011 or some not until 2012. Meanwhile our unemployment figures continue to hit new highs and no-one, anywhere in the states including any level of government, is pointing to a rash of new hires and saying, "See - this is because of the stimulus package!" Edit I forgot: there was one class of police cadets who were going to be let go instead of being offered jobs upon graduation, who, the mayor of some city or other said, were going to have jobs for at least a year because of the stimulus. /Edit
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
modified on Tuesday, May 12, 2009 9:02 PM
Oakman wrote:
Many years, in fact. It seems that much of our "stimulus" package will not be spent until 2011 or some not until 2012.
That in itself is not such a concern. Infrastructure projects, like software projects, take time to complete, some longer than others. You don't want bridges that only reach halfway across the river. The main issue is how long it takes to get projects started.
John Carson