Sonofccn/Mith economic rumble

For any and all other discussion, i.e., not relating to Star Wars or Star Trek or standards of evidence. A reminder: Don't spam, don't flame, and stay reasonable.
Post Reply
sonofccn
Starship Captain
Posts: 1657
Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2006 4:23 pm
Location: Sol system, Earth,USA

Sonofccn/Mith economic rumble

Post by sonofccn » Wed Mar 14, 2012 2:49 am

Mith wrote:No need to apologize...but you're still wrong. The US government spending money, even borrowing it at a high rate, would not crash our economy.
I would disagree. The US or any nation can not just conjure up money from thin air at least not indefinately. Every dollar it spends has to come from somewhere, the Economy, a printing press or from another country. Each of these have limits.
Mith wrote:It's a clock. That explains nothing. The US spent a shitload in World War I and World War II. You're not honestly arguing that we spent more of our GDP for the past few years than when the US was in all out war, are you?
I thought it was fairly informative, I apologize. What I meant to show was that the current debt is at fifteen trillion, meaning we have more or less spent what we are worth, and that the goverment blows through a trillion more than it takes in proving that it is indeed spending money. A lot of money.

Now yes we spent a comparable percentage if not more during WWII but that was for a tangible, solid goal, was for a relative short duration as opposed to buisness as ususal, America was posed as the workshop of the world and was undergoing the birth of the baby boomer promising an enlarging future workforce. Such things do not apply to us anymore.
Mith wrote:Now, that's not to say that government spending right now isn't the best or that they always spend it on the smartest things. The fuck up with the solar panel companies is impart, proof of that. But that didn't crash our economies.
I think you have misunderstood me. While I do believe ballooning debt and a treasure trove of unfunded lialbilities are not good for the country or for economic growth I did not mean to claim the 2008 meltdown was caused by it. My argument was that we did spend money bailing out companies that should have been left to die, that we don't have any money being in hock up to our eyeballs, and that goverment revenues had in fact increased under the Bush Tax Cuts.
Mith wrote:The war effort that the US has spent its past decade on made America a bit more exposed to the debt
Not overly, according to the link to the clock the DOD is only budgeted for some six hundred billion, social security and medicare/medicaid both top over that. Even with two wars the military is at best only one piece of a very large puzzle.
Mith wrote:That's good old fashioned unregulated corporate greed.

If it wasn't for those sacks of shit, our economy wouldn't be in the mess its in now
Well not to defend their actions but that seems overly simplified but neither here nor there. I have no desire to argue the actual meltdown, or indeed laissez faire versus keynesian economics. As is the norm each of us will look and see evidence on why we are correct and the other is invariably wrong, debate on that would only expand further into disagreement without purpose and without substance. And in this case I do not see merit in that.

Picard
Starship Captain
Posts: 1433
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:28 pm

Re: Sonofccn/Mith economic rumble

Post by Picard » Fri Mar 16, 2012 6:06 pm

Spending does help economy in short term, but borrowing doesn't help at all. Thus, country must spend on something that will actually return value, like food production or something similar.

Post Reply