jcd11235 0
champu 1
QuoteMuch of it may have otherwise been saved, which reduces the amount of money being spent in the economy. Money flows from poor to rich. For maximum economic benefit, money should be given to the poor, who will spend all of it, as opposed to given to the rich, who may spend part of it.
Why does money flow from poor to rich? If the poor spend all the money they are given in what ways will it help them? In what form do rich people "save" their money, and why does this result in a negative impact on the economy as a whole?
jcd11235 0
QuoteQuoteMuch of it may have otherwise been saved, which reduces the amount of money being spent in the economy. Money flows from poor to rich. For maximum economic benefit, money should be given to the poor, who will spend all of it, as opposed to given to the rich, who may spend part of it.
Why does money flow from poor to rich? If the poor spend all the money they are given in what ways will it help them? In what form do rich people "save" their money, and why does this result in a negative impact on the economy as a whole?
When money is saved, it is subject to reserve requirements. That means that part of it is removed from the economy. When money is spent, it is all returned to the economy.
It's why trickle down economics doesn't work.
Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!
QuoteQuoteQuoteOr is it put into welfare programs, which keep people unemployed?
That's where your rhetoric makes a departure from reality.
What people are employed with welfare programs? Oh yes. The government.
The spending by the city of San Francisco for the homeless is astounding: roughly 200M$. If you divided the number of homeless by this amount, they'd all be living large, but a huge portion is paying the dogooders within the government. It certainly isn't successful with eliminating the problem.
QuoteQuote
What people are employed with welfare programs?
Perhaps you should look up the definition of keep, counselor.QuoteHow about saying for "people who are not employed." Or "those who are underemployed."
That would be a much more accurate choice of words, with different meaning than your initial selection.
I don't know about where you come from - though you have mentioned your background in the past. Compared to me, you grew up wealthy.
In the event that you think "welfare queen" is just another right-wing pejorative, I would suggest that there are plenty of them whose job is to collect welfare and live in public or subsidized housing.
A job would result in LESS money to them. Give a guy a safety net and he'll take chances and get off. Give a guy a hammock and he'll idle on it.
[Reply]
Quote… and efficiency?
Is efficiency something that is produced?
Yes. That's why we have professions like engineers - people whose job it is to MAKE something more efficient. In the economy, though, the rules of physucs don't necessarily apply. I.e., as much as I hate entertainment rags, others like them. Those who watch the shows view it as an efficient use of their time.
Because people's wants and needs are subjective. Despite your subjective wishes, objective better does not necessarily exist.
[Reply]
QuoteMeaning that you cannot end poverty by throwing money at it. Thus, this money has gone for something that hasn't worked. And has, in fact, (yes "fact") helped to cement the problem.
An assertion for which I am sure you have credible evidence, yes?
Sure. Google poverty rate in the United States. Go historical on it. See whether the raw numbers have increased. If the War on Poverty worked we'd have no horror stories about the need for health finance reform.
I'm saying poverty is still there. What the Progressives did has not worked. Period. I can prove that poverty still exists on a large scale. And I can show you that where the welfare money went in the 1970's is the same place it went in the 80's and 90's.
Because throwing money at poverty merely feeds it.
[Reply]
QuoteWhich is what would be done with it anyway!
Not necessarily. Much of it may have otherwise been saved, which reduces the amount of money being spent in the economy. Money flows from poor to rich. For maximum economic benefit, money should be given to the poor, who will spend all of it, as opposed to given to the rich, who may spend part of it.
I hate to be the one to break this to you, but only the poor do not put their money in banks. You won't find a million dollars under a ricj guy's mattress.
The wealthy put their money in banks. Or they invest their money. That money is then circulated through the economy. Put ten grand into a CD? Yep. You are loaning money to the bank. It then loans to others.
Keeping your money in the bank is probably the BEST way to keep the economy humming. Recall that the Depression really kicked off with runs on the bank. Masses of people sought to withdraw their accounts so they could have cash. Then the economy stagnated because people wouldn't spend.
So the gubment decided to pump loads of money into the economy - hoping to spend our way out of a recession. This turned what I think would have otherwise been a powerful recession into a Great Depression.
The goverment would just let a recovery happen. I keep feeding my son vitamins and protein. I wanted him to be 5 feet tall before he was five.
[Reply]
QuoteWhich is the same for every other method.
Not true. The government has much more information than individuals tend to have.
Not perfect knowledge. The government will spend $300 on a hammer. Great market knowledge.
[Reply] Rational behavior, while not assured, is more likely than with most individuals.
Bullshit. Take about ten years solid to read the Federal Register. Did you know that there are specifications for MSDS for bricks? Sure - a whole lotta knowledge there.
Too fucking much information can be a problem. Did you know that our treasury secretary cannot figure out how to do taxes correctly? Too much information.
[Reply]
QuoteSo, if the government has both perfect knowledge of the market AND perfect knowledge of the preferences of the individual, …
Nice strawman.
Hence your view of people. Individuals are strawmen, eh? Individual preferences shall not happen but shall be dictated. By whom? By you?
You favor a government that would give Cheney and Bush control over how you are treated. I don't.
I favor a government that will not punish me if I succeed nor reward me for failure.
Don't call me a strawman. Your feelings do not dictate my subjective preferences. Nor can I dictate yours.
My wife is hotter than your wife.
Perhaps you should look up the definition of keep, counselor.
That would be a much more accurate choice of words, with different meaning than your initial selection.
Yes.
Is efficiency something that is produced?
An assertion for which I am sure you have credible evidence, yes?
Not necessarily. Much of it may have otherwise been saved, which reduces the amount of money being spent in the economy. Money flows from poor to rich. For maximum economic benefit, money should be given to the poor, who will spend all of it, as opposed to given to the rich, who may spend part of it.
Not true. The government has much more information than individuals tend to have. Rational behavior, while not assured, is more likely than with most individuals.
Nice strawman.
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites