
wufwugy
Members-
Posts
23 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Everything posted by wufwugy
-
That is an entirely different issue, and has nothing to do with whether or not the Fed is a financial institution with economic purposes
-
It would work for a very short time, but as the market became flooded with product they would devalue too much, and investors would essentially paying for labor that doesn't produce more than it costs. Your idea is actually part of Keynesian stimulus in times of recession, but only one part and there are much better to do it. Your idea would not benefit over the long term, but yes it would help during short term. However, it wouldn't be nearly as cost effective over the short term as what we've already been doing i.e. expanding unemployment insurance and shovel ready projects. Creating income is not hard. It's creating sustainable income that's hard. In this crisis, we have done very well at making the increasing unemployment not much of a problem; the real solution is in fixing the financial sector. So actually your suggestion is on the right track WRT one area of a recession, but what I don't like is creating more supply in doing so. A better solution involves creating more demand without the increase in supply since we have too much supply
-
What you're suggesting is to increase supply without increase in demand during a recession of depressed demand. Increasing supply like this would result in the market being flooded by product, thus reducing value, thus destroying investment, thus destroying wages, thus destroying the economy. What we're looking at in our situation is strawberry shortcake compared to what would happen if we increased supply three-fold. Your idea is already well understood, and is used when practical for reducing cost. This is an entirely different issue than our economic woes. Edit: Unemployment would definitely bottom out very quickly like you say, but the subsequent backlash would be so dramatic we would be losing several million jobs a month due to demand having been royally ****ed
-
Not quite. This interdependency is to such a degree that it's not purely a creditor/debtor situation as the lay see it. We could default on China's credit and it would probably hurt them at least as much as us. The notion that it's cut and dry is misleading, and the notion that our being in debt to them is bad for us but not them is misleading. The Fed is an financial institution for economic purposes, and that has everything to do with government Economists developed more knowledge. There are a whole host of problems with backed currency instead of fiat currency. The lay tend to not like fiat currency since backed currency advocates can spin the 'inflation tax' well. One of the strongest examples in history of fiat currency trouncing backed currency: leaving the Gold Standard was paramount in the world climbing out of the Great Depression. Fiat currency can be misused tremendously, though, but that doesn't negate the fact that when used according to contemporary understanding it works better than backed currency. I can't seem to quite understand how so many Americans can live in the, far and away, strongest and most influential economy on the planet yet think it actually plays the submissive role.
-
So said Hoover as he and his followers turned a recession into a Great Depression Then FDR shows up and puts government to work and creates the strongest economy in all of history by far, strongest working class in all of history by far, and the longest period in US history without financial failures by far; and this period of absence of financial failures would be able to stretch on forever under FDR-based governmenting except the American people decided to allow the wealthy to fool them again and return us to the anti-middle class, boom/bust economy perpetuated since the rise of the nation until FDR
-
The relationship is substantially more highly interdependent and nuanced than this suggests. And go against over a century of economic understanding? Destorying the fed is to economics what destroying the laboratory is to biology. Like usual, it's not THAT something is used, but HOW something is used
-
I agree, yet I'm not isolating 'capable' with 'actual' since they are not mutually exclusive. US is a current huge economic power simply because of the numbers, but on the flip side, our capacity is very important since the likelyhood of it being actualized is huge. For example, I would bet very strongly that China and Japan economic elites are fully aware of the retarded US tax policy on the rich and the retarded us of revenue under Bush, but they're also aware of the Clinton policies that they were good and the FDR/Eisenhower policies that were much better, and they probably realize that when push comes to shove (like is happening now) the US will return to more beneficial economic policy which actualizes our potential. Unfortunately, Conservatism and the Republican propaganda machine is so powerful in the US that it will take a bunch of time or an actual economic meltdown for the US to repeat the awesome economic policies utilized during the Depression. I mean right now we're looking at tax policy just letting the Bush cuts expire, when we should be looking to boost up progressive taxes substantially higher (assuming we're no longer in recession, but it's debatable if pumping up taxes on rich from the super low point they're at now would be negative during a recession). Exactly. Given that we were able to run up huge debt under Bush in exactly the areas that are not beneficial is testament to how strong our economic really is relative to other economies. We are now returning to actual spending policy that mirrors investment instead of waste, and our creditors know it. This is true, however the degrees are what matters. Currently, the degree that our wealth distribution favors the rich, the suppliers, is vastly disproportionate to the wealth distribution to the poor, the consumers. If we were at at FDR/Eisenhower tax rates and discussing raising them even more than your concerns would be practically valid. As it is now, we're so far gone on the other end that we're making the mistake of favoring the wealthy too much.
-
Conspiracy theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
-
From the looks of it, the law isn't obligatory since citizens can conscientiously object. Not sure what it takes to object, but a clause which includes the ability to opting out is not the mandatory situation I'm speaking of.
-
Mandatory ownership or carry would have devastating impacts. Loads and loads of people are of low IQ and irresponsible, and you want to make sure they are armed and dangerous? You are probably right that crime would go down a ton, but that wouldn't make up for all the wariness and negligence most of us would have because we simply don't wanna carry or be around firearms. I mean, I love guns, LOVE them, but I definitely don't want to carry one on my person that often. I would be uncomfortable, and likelyhood of accidents would skyrocket, yet I'm a smart person with tremendous understanding of gun safety. I cannot fathom how bad it would be if every dumbass had a gun or if every person who didn't want to carry were still forced. This is also mega unconstitutional. I would debate (and be right) that forcing people to own/carry guns is more unconstitutional than banning guns.
-
It's fallacious to equate winning a Presidential campaign on a host of issues, most of which had nothing to do with firearms, and some which were huge deals, to winning a campaign against one of the supporters of the winner's opponent. I was being somewhat facetious. Back when this clip was out somebody joked to me that Biden said he was gonna shoot Obama if he tried to take his guns. Biden didn't say that, but given who Biden is and what he said, it was funny. Here's the clip YouTube - Biden and his Beretta http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XcyLeOm6yGc&feature=related My overall point is that Obama is too smart to wage war against firearms when there are soooooooooo many more important things on the table. He knows what mistakes Clinton made, and he doesn't want to repeat them. IMO, this is why we have seen next to nothing since the election about Obama going after guns. Even Hillary looks to be straying from them because they know it's a super tough issue, and they got bigger fish to fry.
-
1. Deficit spending in face of demand-based recessions has been vindicated time and time and time again. Your dad's issue with it seems to be the current debt. My response is, not only is that not a problem, but we could have a much higher debt and it still wouldn't be a problem. Here's part of why Our debt/GDP ratio is smaller than a few other major nations, if there was a problem it would hit them long before it hits us; US T-bills are still considered the safest investment on the planet simply because of our colossal economic power and our ability to pay a debt down; Obama's policies are pro revenue and prosperity and our creditors know this. Our creditors are not oblivious to the fact that our debt problems are a product of neo-conservative policies. They know that US economic capabilities are immense, and that when we return to FDR/Eisenhower policies, which we partly are doing with Obama, then they'll get paid back. They also realize that part of getting back to these policies (and emerging from a recession) involves spending for a while. 2. Maybe FDR made mistakes in raising taxes on the wealthy, but that would only be the case if US back then was not able to borrow like we are today. Even then, at least some of his tax increases on the wealthy were good. The thing about wealth is that it gets hoarded, and taxing them enough to where they aren't able to hoard much, to where that percentage of the money supply is in circulation instead of making the single person more wealth is great economic policy. Also, AFAIK, high taxes on wealthy always correlates with booming middle class and progressive human rights. 3. Pretty sure the 'buy American' phrase got dropped from the stim bill. Besides, I don't think there was any teeth to the phrase anyways other than making the Congressmen reading it feel better. 4. Doesn't look like your dad actually elaborated on this 5. WRT the second to last paragraph analogy, it doesn't work. It doesn't factor in the differences of income due to times of recession and boom, and it doesn't factor in the ability to create higher income due to investments. These two things are entirely the purpose of more spending; we will be able to increase revenue due to turning the recession around, and also increase revenue by putting money into investments that make revenue higher in the future.
-
Those who say this need to touch up on a little history. Here's a nifty and interesting outline of the Great Depression timeline. Timeline of the Great Depression FDR did make some mistakes, but they are far overshadowed by all the awesome stuff he did. Really the only mistake he made that most people know about is cutting back spending in fear of budget deficit during '37, despite warnings from economists including Keynes whom I believe FDR claimed to not fully understand, and this causing another recession in midst of the recovery. But those who say FDR screwed up are not necessarily talking about that. They're basically either highly uninformed or purposely misleading. They're confusing FDR for Hoover. They're confusing sound economic policies that came with FDR and governmental regulations that did amazing things for the economy with the disastrous economic policies of Hoover and lassaiz-faire which turned a mild recession into the Great Depression. What we are seeing now is a repeat of FDR approach, but better due to greater economic understanding, but also worse due to political opposition from Republicans and wannabe Republican conservadems because they havent had their ideologies *** kicked by 24% unemployment. We are extremely lucky that we are not pursuing Hoover policies for the first four years of the recession, and we will not even get remotely close to a depression because of it.
-
Pretty sure Democrats have finally realized that they cannot beat the gun lobby, and they have bigger fish to fry. So I suspect we will see very little anti-gun activity now and over the next several years. Also, didn't you hear that Biden gonna shoot Obama if he tries to take his guns?
-
How did we grow from Egalitarianism to Plutocracy?
wufwugy replied to coberst's topic in Political Sciences
Jared Diamond is the man. Looking at a slightly different thing than this, as far as I see it, the transitioning to and from Egalitarian and Plutocratic policy in our already developed societies is a product of wealthy and powerful individuals misleading the public by pushing ignorance and making big deals out of little things. -
It is highly illogical and disingenuous to compare US to Weimar. I honestly cannot even explain why because they're obviously two entirely different situations, and I am lost for words when trying to explain the obvious. I have difficulty reading material that gets facts and logic way wrong so I had to stop once I noticed the claim that the US economy has collapsed. Its size has reduced by a small but not entirely insignificant degree. Not only is this not collapse, but it's not even remotely close to collapse.
-
I am very pleased with the Obama administration. He has decided to listen to experts who have learned much from the Great Depression, Japan's Lost Decade, Keynesianism, etc IMO, it would only be looking better if Obama thought it were more politically viable to pursue more.
-
The Economic recover: anyone willing to make a prediction?
wufwugy replied to charles brough's topic in Economics
I knew nothing about economics before September, but since then it has been my favorite subject. My prediction is not an exact one because I don't have an exact enough idea (neither does anybody else), but my somewhat educated guess presented informally and imprecisely is that there is a decent chance that winter of 09 we will see more jobs created than jobs lost, that the the longer we go past 09 the higher the likelyhood of the recession turning, that Obama will be our FDR and handsomely win again in 2012, and many of us will have forgotten this moderate recession in a few years time. -
Couldn't have put it better myself. One issue, however, is addressing current events/issues and individuals in politics. There is a degree of discussion of the former, but looks to be none of the latter, and I consider this a problem since we need both in order to have any kind of real understanding and influence on political matters. Understanding the issues is one thing, but it's nothing if we dont understand our representatives' understanding/position on the same issues.
-
No way the religious forum comes close to dominating the site. Unless I'm missing some important data, science forums get many more views than Theology. Perhaps most people who view Theocracy also post, whereas most who view the various science forums do not, which makes sense since in religion everybody has a voice whereas in science they do not. Even then, what kind of overflow are you noticing from the religious forum into science forums? I've noticed none or next to none, but I haven't been here that long. Also, it's not like those interested in religion yet not science are finding their way here. Politics is definitely better than religion. The foundation of politics is not in Imagination Land. Also, you're greatly overstating your position if you think politics could annihilate science here. There would very likely be no spill-over, and science is still the first and foremost interest of all who find Hypography (at least I can only guess). Really the only issue imo is if those in charge want to keep Hypography purely science related, which is totally fine. There is probably some value gained in that, but also probably some lost. However, I recall tormod saying that something being purely scientific isn't prerequisite for its presence here, which is obvious given the existence of Theology Forum. There's already a small amount of issues often considered political discussed in the Social Science classification. I find it hard to believe that general politics cannot be discussed with the same logical and emotional fortitude as political science is already. fwiw I'm sure this won't happen because if it was wanted it already would have implemented.
-
Seems to me that Political Science is already addressed in Social Science. I'm referring to more general politics stuff. Politics may not be a science, but it definitely requires a scientific approach in order to understand it correctly. This is why I want to see one here; because the people here are smart and I wanna know what you all got to say about politics. Actually, I feel this would not be the case. I've been a member of a handful of forums that have subforums on totally unrelated topics (like politics), and the traffic in the subforum wasn't anybody other than a regular of the forum community or the forum primary topic. If Hypography had a politics forum I venture a guess that it wouldn't attract anybody other than those who are already into the science of the forum. Most definitely. However, politics is often global, or at least national politics has global implications. Even then, any confusion herein could be easily fixed simply by specifying designation either in thread title or post content. There isn't even a prerequisite among the science forums here to do this, yet I see posters do it. Like they opine on something wrt chemistry but begin with "I'm no chemist so take this fwiw" or something. This type of thing has been a moderate problem on other forums I'm a part of, and the solution has been simply in just a more specified thread titling. Very true. However, I feel that it would be less required here since the members of this forum are already amongst the most level-headed. When it comes to emotion, there is little, if no, distinction between political discourse and religious discourse, and Hypography has a religion forum. If that can be cordial and moderated then so can politics. Politics is also no less science than religion. In fact, I believe that politics is more appropo amongst the science crowd than is religion. Few valuable things are not challenges. At the very least, I hope that those in charge give this some consideration. I loathe having to wade through the bile of the logically and politically ignorant found on almost all other sites with political primary or secondary forums. Would be very nice to be able to peruse or engage in calm, intelligent, and progressive discourse on political subjects like is standard for Hypography. Seriously, I've been on the fence for years about a handful of science related issues, yet those questions have been answered only after a few hours of reading Hypography. I've been a reader of another science board which I find quite informative as well, but there seemed to still be enough chaff and inconclusive debates around there that I had to put those issues back on the shelf.
-
i have been searching and searching for a good politics forum on the web, but have yet to find one. as we all know, they're mostly full of the spew of ignorant opinion, and often plummet into flame wars. i do not like this nor want this. what i have discovered is that political discussion is largely a product of the intellect and propriety of those engaging in the discussion. this is partly why i feel that hypography not having a politics forum is a shame. you guys are the most level-headed, clear-minded individuals ive found on the web so far. i do not want a good politics forum so i can blindly opine like most do, but so i can evaluate the dialogue of those with superior understanding. as it is now, i have yet to find much of the latter in politics forums on the web. it seems that the social sciences forum here has the occasional political thread, but still not much with regards to general politics (as is appropriate for political science). i am one of those people who pretty much never votes simply because i do not understand the issues. instead of jumping on some bandwagon and blowing my horn i would like to actually believe in what im representing. i have found that i cannot do this without understanding the issues, and that the issues are largely misrepresented in most political forums. i believe that it is likely that hypography could have a political forum which would be mainly devoid of the noise. it seems that postmagnet is meant to be the place for political discussion, but as it is now, the traffic is just way to small for that. anyways, even though is strays from the strict theme of science found on hypography, i believe there is great merit in a place for political discussion among hypographers. and thank you all for making this a haven for intelligence, critical thinking, and cordiality
-
i found this place by googling 'seagull speciation'. i am very glad it came up since i wouldn't have found this place otherwise. i have tremendous interests in most things scientific even though i am not that gifted in them. i do not think it is likely that i will post much since i prefer to keep my mouth shut when there are things for me to learn, and it is clear to me that this forum is highly informative. you guys are bit too out of my league for me to play ball, but this is fine since one of my hobbies is learning, usually via forum lurking. fwiw, i play poker for a living. so if anybody has interests therein i am always up for discussing strategy. p.s. since i dont plan on posting much at all it may seem odd that i make this intro in the first place. well, i have an ulterior motive. apparently, i need at least 1 post in order to post in the feedback forum, which i am about to do. :D also i would like to thank you guys for making this forum what it is. i find great pleasure in the sciences, but have little means of understanding them except from forum discussions. thank you