Texsox Posted September 11, 2011 Share Posted September 11, 2011 If companies were allowed to operate without any regulations in this country would supply and demand be enough to assure safe working conditions? Would it be enough to assure safe products for consumers? Would it be enough to protect workers from companies cheating them out of wages? I don't think anyone here would argue that there should be no regulations, it is the degree of regulations that can, and should, be debated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VictoryMC98 Posted September 11, 2011 Share Posted September 11, 2011 Wait, what? Have you missed the stimulus's and QE's totally? We are on pretty much the same path as the great depression and just like then it isn't working. What is QE, sorry drawing a blank Did you not notice the small stimulus actually turned around the economy, in regards to jobs right? Here.. look at the chart Cenk uses.. http://www.youtube.com/user/TheYoungTurks#p/u/6/L0PO_FrW9C8 SO tell us again how it didn't work. I don't get your Great Depression reference.. so please by all means explain that one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted September 11, 2011 Share Posted September 11, 2011 QUOTE (VictoryMC98 @ Sep 11, 2011 -> 11:13 AM) What is QE, sorry drawing a blank Did you not notice the small stimulus actually turned around the economy, in regards to jobs right? Here.. look at the chart Cenk uses.. http://www.youtube.com/user/TheYoungTurks#p/u/6/L0PO_FrW9C8 SO tell us again how it didn't work. I don't get your Great Depression reference.. so please by all means explain that one. If the economy is "turned around" and the stimulus "worked" why do we need a 3rd stimulus plan? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VictoryMC98 Posted September 11, 2011 Share Posted September 11, 2011 If the economy is "turned around" and the stimulus "worked" why do we need a 3rd stimulus plan? After reviewing and see what this "stimulus" does... 56-7% is more tax cuts.. (ie more debt to the US). for the "job creators"... Sorry, unless the stimulus is 100% for infrastructure building.. I state its a GOP type plan.. ie a failure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted September 11, 2011 Share Posted September 11, 2011 QUOTE (VictoryMC98 @ Sep 11, 2011 -> 11:47 AM) After reviewing and see what this "stimulus" does... 56-7% is more tax cuts.. (ie more debt to the US). for the "job creators"... Sorry, unless the stimulus is 100% for infrastructure building.. I state its a GOP type plan.. ie a failure. I am glad you came around to admit the stimulus failed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kapkomet Posted September 11, 2011 Share Posted September 11, 2011 Man, there's some real winners coming out of the woodwork lately around here. Just adds to the cesspool of the filibuster. I hear my brain cells rotting more now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VictoryMC98 Posted September 11, 2011 Share Posted September 11, 2011 I am glad you came around to admit the stimulus failed. Wait, What.. Not even close.. The last did its job... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sir Posted September 11, 2011 Share Posted September 11, 2011 QUOTE (VictoryMC98 @ Sep 11, 2011 -> 11:00 AM) Wait, What.. Not even close.. The last did its job... Yeah, that's why we have 9.1% unemployment right now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted September 11, 2011 Share Posted September 11, 2011 It's whay we don't have 10+, but it ultimately failed to break the cycle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VictoryMC98 Posted September 11, 2011 Share Posted September 11, 2011 Yeah, that's why we have 9.1% unemployment right now. It be 15% if they did nothing.. you know that right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted September 11, 2011 Share Posted September 11, 2011 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Sep 11, 2011 -> 11:37 AM) If the economy is "turned around" and the stimulus "worked" why do we need a 3rd stimulus plan? Because it was part of a process? You could just keep going back and back and back. Why did we need one of Bush's plan worked? Why did he need one if Clinton's worked? Why did he need one . . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted September 11, 2011 Share Posted September 11, 2011 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Sep 11, 2011 -> 11:58 AM) Wait, what? Have you missed the stimulus's and QE's totally? We are on pretty much the same path as the great depression and just like then it isn't working. What the? Did you seriously just say that the economic conditions in 2011, 3 years after the crash, are comparably bad to those in 1931? Unemployment was approaching 20% by the end of 1931. It's stuck at 9% now. That ought to tell you how effective the interventions have been. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sir Posted September 11, 2011 Share Posted September 11, 2011 QUOTE (VictoryMC98 @ Sep 11, 2011 -> 11:16 AM) It be 15% if they did nothing.. you know that right? You're hopeless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted September 11, 2011 Share Posted September 11, 2011 QUOTE (VictoryMC98 @ Sep 11, 2011 -> 12:00 PM) Wait, What.. Not even close.. The last did its job... Great, then we don't need to waste another $400 billion+ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted September 11, 2011 Share Posted September 11, 2011 Exactly. And we don't need to offer incentives to businesses for hiring people. There are all sorts of jobs out there, it's just people don't want to work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted September 11, 2011 Share Posted September 11, 2011 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Sep 11, 2011 -> 12:20 PM) What the? Did you seriously just say that the economic conditions in 2011, 3 years after the crash, are comparably bad to those in 1931? Unemployment was approaching 20% by the end of 1931. It's stuck at 9% now. That ought to tell you how effective the interventions have been. Are you really trying to use both unemployment figures interchangably? Wow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted September 11, 2011 Share Posted September 11, 2011 circular semantic arguments are the best Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted September 11, 2011 Share Posted September 11, 2011 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Sep 11, 2011 -> 01:26 PM) Are you really trying to use both unemployment figures interchangably? Wow. Do you really want to argue that current stagnation levels are comparable to 1931? Seriously? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted September 11, 2011 Share Posted September 11, 2011 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Sep 11, 2011 -> 12:27 PM) Do you really want to argue that current stagnation levels are comparable to 1931? Seriously? We are on the exact same path right now. I know you won't ever see it that way, well unless it was the GOPs fault, but they are remarkably similar, your comparision of unemployment levels actually would strengthen that because back then they didn't make all of the specialized adjustments for people who can't seek unemployment, the underemployed etc. Effective unemployment right now isn't too far from 20% in reality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted September 11, 2011 Share Posted September 11, 2011 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Sep 11, 2011 -> 01:29 PM) We are on the exact same path right now. I know you won't ever see it that way, well unless it was the GOPs fault, but they are remarkably similar, your comparision of unemployment levels actually would strengthen that because back then they didn't make all of the specialized adjustments for people who can't seek unemployment, the underemployed etc. Effective unemployment right now isn't too far from 20% in reality. We started on the exact same path in the fall of 2008. GDP was shrinking at a 9% annualized rate. In the depression, GDP sank by 9% in 1930, 7% in 1931, and 12% in 1932. The GDP drop going into Obama's term was on the same pace as 1930. But that entirely turned around and instead of a 9% drop over the full year, things leveled off and began growing at 1% for the next 2 years. GDP is monstrously above where it was in the depression. Employment is monstrously above where it was in the depression. The level of shock was the same, but the path diverged rapidly after March 2009. (Blue bars in this graph). We did the 1930 bar for 1/2 of a year. Then we passed the stimulus package. And instead of giant negative bars, mimimally positive bars. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted September 11, 2011 Share Posted September 11, 2011 SS, great point about the danger of comparing two numbers that were derived from different methodology. Balta, kudos for the graph. Question, have we not learned much about economies in the past 80 years? Is it still such and inexact science that improving on the results from the depression isn't possible? Why is there even a debate as to what to do? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted September 11, 2011 Share Posted September 11, 2011 Ideological opposition Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted September 11, 2011 Share Posted September 11, 2011 QUOTE (Tex @ Sep 11, 2011 -> 01:38 PM) Question, have we not learned much about economies in the past 80 years? Is it still such and inexact science that improving on the results from the depression isn't possible? Why is there even a debate as to what to do? A lot of economists I read say that we know exactly what we should be doing right now...but we're choosing not to because the right thing to do right now is politically risky. Just like in 1937 when the recession resumed because FDR took the politically expedient move and tried to cut the deficit...it's hard to keep running massive deficits even when the bond market is screaming to do so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VictoryMC98 Posted September 11, 2011 Share Posted September 11, 2011 (edited) Great, then we don't need to waste another $400 billion+ What we don't need is another tax cut that has not worked in 11 years.. since well there is no direct relation to taxes and jobs.. We do need to rebuild our infrastructure, and if they were spending 400 billion STRICTLY on that.. Then I approve. Edited September 11, 2011 by VictoryMC98 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VictoryMC98 Posted September 11, 2011 Share Posted September 11, 2011 A lot of economists I read say that we know exactly what we should be doing right now...but we're choosing not to because the right thing to do right now is politically risky. Just like in 1937 when the recession resumed because FDR took the politically expedient move and tried to cut the deficit...it's hard to keep running massive deficits even when the bond market is screaming to do so. To fix the debt is easy.. But as you said its not Politically Sane, which is why they don't want to do it.. To suggest it, would be Political Suicide. and they care more about their jobs then the people who put them there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts