[Guest]

i was reading a book on slavery and this immediately poped into my mind.

[unreality]

Are you saying Barack Obama is taking vengeance on America for its slavery practices 150 years before?

(1) slavery was the acceptable worldwide norm then except for a few liberal future-thinking people (like Obama) called abolitionists, who were against the cruelty and inhumanity of the system, who were mostly in the north of... you guessed it, the United States. And it was in the US that some of the earliest great strides against slavery were taken

(2) IMO Obama is doing the best he can considering what's going on in the world today. Change of a colossal scale can't happen overnight. I just heard on the news that we're coming out of the recession, but tbh don't take my word for any of this lol, I tend to be a bit unfocused when it comes to politics

[Guest]

it was a joke, but a half one at best.

barack obama however has massively increased how much the government spends, even more so than bush.

i don't blame barack obama in particular for the problem, but i do find i it ironically humorous that a black man is putting the last nail in the coffin to seal our fate as a doomed republic.

[Guest]

it was a joke, but a half one at best.

barack obama however has massively increased how much the government spends, even more so than bush.

i don't blame barack obama in particular for the problem, but i do find i it ironically humorous that a black man is putting the last nail in the coffin to seal our fate as a doomed republic.

This needs far too much research and evidence to actually call it a valid claim, one way or the other. Arguably, more debt will destroy America. Arguably, a stagnated economy will do it faster. The last time America faced a crisis like this, the thing that brought it out of it was a World War. This time, the thing that arguably caused it was a war. The economy is a strange, and touchy creature. Only time will tell if the efforts being made now are good ones.

[Guest]

This needs far too much research and evidence to actually call it a valid claim, one way or the other. Arguably, more debt will destroy America. Arguably, a stagnated economy will do it faster.

arguably, you can't spend your way to a healthier economy. if i doubled the amount of money in everyone's pocket, do you think that would stimulate the ecomony? i assure you the only thing that would happen is the price of everything would almost immediately double.

The last time America faced a crisis like this, the thing that brought it out of it was a World War. This time, the thing that arguably caused it was a war. The economy is a strange, and touchy creature. Only time will tell if the efforts being made now are good ones.

i've done the research my friend, i assure you it wasn't the world war that brought america out of the great depression.

as to wether the current policies are good ones, i can garentee you they aren't. the government is taxing any business that makes a profit until they have next to none, then it's inflating until the dollar is nearly worthless, and now they are borrowing against future generations. the system is unsustainable.

[Guest]

arguably, you can't spend your way to a healthier economy. if i doubled the amount of money in everyone's pocket, do you think that would stimulate the ecomony? i assure you the only thing that would happen is the price of everything would almost immediately double.

i've done the research my friend, i assure you it wasn't the world war that brought america out of the great depression.

as to wether the current policies are good ones, i can garentee you they aren't. the government is taxing any business that makes a profit until they have next to none, then it's inflating until the dollar is nearly worthless, and now they are borrowing against future generations. the system is unsustainable.

Well, I suppose I'm glad I have your word for that.

Edit: I'm not explicitly saying that you're wrong, I'm just saying that the evidence isn't there. Or even if it is "there," that it isn't here, and that you're asking us to take a whole lot on Faith, which, if you look around, these forums aren't known to do.

Edited July 28, 2009 by SomeGuy

[Guest]

http://www.campaignforliberty.com/edu/economics.php

[Guest]

here's a video form the man that predicted the previous collapse before it came.

unless government severely cuts spending we're in for a big bust.

in this 1 hour video, shwiff goes into why the stock market and the housing market bubble rose, how they fell, and the coming collapse of the american economy.

my favourite quote from the video, "america isn't the engine driving the world economy, its the caboose, getting rid of it would make the rest of the train go faster"

[Guest]

Are you saying Barack Obama is taking vengeance on America for its slavery practices 150 years before?

(1) slavery was the acceptable worldwide norm then except for a few liberal future-thinking people (like Obama) called abolitionists, who were against the cruelty and inhumanity of the system, who were mostly in the north of... you guessed it, the United States. And it was in the US that some of the earliest great strides against slavery were taken

(2) IMO Obama is doing the best he can considering what's going on in the world today. Change of a colossal scale can't happen overnight. I just heard on the news that we're coming out of the recession, but tbh don't take my word for any of this lol, I tend to be a bit unfocused when it comes to politics

First unreality, the US can't take credit for making "some of the earliest great strides against slavery" because while there were a lot of abolitionists here, we were one of the last Western powers to end the practice completely (and as the South liked to argue at the time, it was the North's ships that brought the slaves here, so it's questionable how much of the moral high ground anyone can claim in that debate ).

Second, Newsweek came out with a front cover saying the Recession is over, but Obama has responded to it saying that we may be at the "beginning of the end of the Recession," not willing to say we've come out of it completely (and probably for good reason). Some people don't think we've hit bottom yet (see below).

here's a video form the man that predicted the previous collapse before it came.

unless government severely cuts spending we're in for a big bust.

in this 1 hour video, shwiff goes into why the stock market and the housing market bubble rose, how they fell, and the coming collapse of the american economy.

my favourite quote from the video, "america isn't the engine driving the world economy, its the caboose, getting rid of it would make the rest of the train go faster"

I unfortunately don't have time (and can't see the videos at work) to look at these videos, but you mention this man Shwiff who predicted the collapse. He's not the only economist (assuming he is an economist) who predicted the fall. Paul Krugman also predicted that the economy was going to tank. I don't have many links myself, but you can look him up (and probably his detractors too ) easily enough on Google. However, he says that the government is not doing enough to combat the economic problems. Two economists disagreeing; who would have expected such a thing?

I would be interested to have someone state here (as I don't have the time or capacity to watch the videos) exactly what brought us out of the Great Depression if it wasn't the war. I've heard FDR's supporters say the New Deal helped bring us out and the people who couldn't stand FDR said it was the war production. I don't know if I've heard anyone argue that it was something different than either.

arguably, you can't spend your way to a healthier economy. if i doubled the amount of money in everyone's pocket, do you think that would stimulate the ecomony? i assure you the only thing that would happen is the price of everything would almost immediately double.

Yes, it would be silly to try to spend money wantonly to fix the economy, but calculated, well-placed stimulus has the capacity to spur job growth and get the economy rolling on its own. You talk of doubling the amount of money in everyone's pocket, but I don't see Obama or any of his administration arguing for anything like that. Pres. Bush was the one doing that with his tax cuts for the wealthy, so I'm afraid I don't see your point.

i've done the research my friend, i assure you it wasn't the world war that brought america out of the great depression.

as to wether the current policies are good ones, i can garentee you they aren't. the government is taxing any business that makes a profit until they have next to none, then it's inflating until the dollar is nearly worthless, and now they are borrowing against future generations. the system is unsustainable.

I'm a little curious how Big Pharma, the HMOs, the energy companies et al. all posting record profits constitutes the government taxing profit until there's next to none. If these billions of dollars in profits represent next to none of the profits these companies are making, then the government should be rolling in cash and we should be out of the woods in no time.

[Guest]

Thank you, Dawh. Stated better than I could have, even if I'd had the time to present a proper argument.

Also, phillip, thank you for posting links and the like. I look forward to having time to go over them properly. However, having looked at them briefly, I do not really see "proof," so to speak. There is a lot of economic theory, which I confess I have only a small amount of direct experience with, and an economist's opinion. It is educated, and justifiable, and there is certainly evidence to back up his points, but it is still an opinion. I am certain that the President also has economists on his staff, and it would seem that they disagree. Frankly put, if there were a clear formula for producing and maintaining a healthy economy, then there wouldn't be such a thing as liberal or conservative philosophies on money, and there likely wouldn't be any poor countries, or recessions. That is simply not the case.

Also, in regards to WWII, this is something that I've studied pretty thoroughly. Entering (or being dragged into) the World War provided a lot of things that can easily be argued to have saved the economy. The military provided jobs for the unemployed, and caused jobs at home to be vacated (via the draft). It purchased machinery, weaponry, oil, food, etc. from American industry. The increased demand, and the demand for more sophisticated (even if it was military) technology led to increased funding for scientific research. The fact that the more technologically advanced countries were essentially all at war, and suffering severe damage to their infrastructure led to America selling military equipment, and munitions to its allies.

Then the war ended. Europe's infrastructure was decimated. Japan suffered similarly. The only other legitimate economic force was Russia. This led to the Cold War, which led to America, in an effort to "keep up with the Jones' (or absolutely outpace the Jones', as the case may be), keeping its industry strong. It maintained production far beyond what was necessary, continued to fund research, etc.

A quick google search points here

[Guest]

here's my 2 cents...first of all dawh made some good points...there are so many 'economists' out there with their own opinion on what's happening and what's going to happen..it seems like some just say crap in hopes of being the one to say "I told ya so"...my opinion is that the media has just as much to blame for the continuing decline of our economy as anything else does..I mean everytime you flip on the news, there's always some stories about this company and that company are bankrupt..more lay-offs from this company..stories about how one day it's getting better, then the next day some clown says it is getting worse...and that scares people into not wanting to go out and spend money..and basically what it comes down to is consumer spending...the more americans spend, the better the economy will be...but obviously if you're unemployed you are not going to be spending very much..that's what really sucks about it all..they need to tackle the unemployment issue...it should never have gotten to this point in the first place, but unfortunately it has...

as for stimulus checks...there are pros and cons of that..I for one am all for it...the pros (which it was intended for) is that people get the extra cash and spend it...the cons are the people that use it to pay down some of their debt, and others that just hold on to it and save it..lol at doubling your money..I know of a lot of people that got that check, and it tripled their money or more...some people spend their last dime on payday

and WWII was the main factor in bringing america out of the depresion...I'm sure there were other contributing factors, but I would like to see what had a bigger impact other than the world war..

and I am not big on politics, I actually hate to discuss it, but I don't think it is fair to blame Obama for anything just yet...he barely has his shoes off in the White House...give him a chance..nothing can fix our situation over night...I've heard the blame get passed to previous presidents as far back as Reagan...all of them from him to now and in between all had good things and bad things they did...it's hard to satisfy everything in a republic economy..maybe that's why history shows, every one of them previous to ours has eventually failed...

and whoever said companies are being taxed so much that their profits are next to nothing...yea I don't think that is very accurate..at all...I think they should be taxed even more..and that goes for all millionaires..middle class people spend their money on the rich..rich people are spending their money on the rich..the rich keep getting richer..tax the hell outta them and pump some of that money back into the economy..they can afford it..I think the money in america needs to be dispersed and distributed more evenly..the government, as far as I know, has to back up all money printed in the US with gold..so they can't just go and print out an extra billion dollars out of the blue...the rich need to cough up some of that dough..if it were'nt for people like me and the other millions of people, they would'nt be rich in the first place...give some back rich people..

[Guest]

...the government, as far as I know, has to back up all money printed in the US with gold..so they can't just go and print out an extra billion dollars out of the blue...

The U.S. dropped the gold standard back in 1971 along with the rest of the world. All printed world currency is "fiat money" which means they can and do make as much as they want. Ask John Maynard Keynes what he thought about that, and the gold standard.

The economy will get better but not before it gets bad enough for the rich to really feel it. That's just starting to happen.

BTW who cares who gets to say I told you so? The whole world is in trouble, and who predicted it won't get us out of it, nobody listened to them then and nobody will now.

[Guest]

oh, boy. it seems i have my work cut out for me! where to begin?

let's start off with:

lesson 1.

value of trade

so let's start off with two people on an island; bob, and joe.

and each of them can acquire two goods; fish and fire wood.

if bob specializes in catching fish, he can get 7 fish a day.

if bob specializes in getting fire wood, he can get 15 pieces of fire wood a day.

joe can get 6 fish a day, or 18 pieces of fire wood.

without trade, they will both need fish and fire wood, so they will have to spend some time getting each.

the best they can do then is bob gets 4 fish, and 6 fire wood, and joe gets 3 fish and 9 fire wood.

however, when they engage in trade, they can each do what they are best at, resulting in 7 fish and 18 fire wood.

dividing that back up among the two of them, bob gets 3 fish, but now gets 10 fire wood, and joe gets 4 fish and 8 fire wood.

each now have a point of profit outside their individual production.

[Guest]

lesson 2

adding currency

for the first several days, currency is unnecessary.

joe values fish more than fire wood, and bob values fire wood more than fish,

so when they trade, each gets something they need in exchange for something they want.

however, bob only needs 6 pieces of fire wood to cook up his 3 fish, where as joe needs all 8 fire wood to cook up his 4 fish.

so bob will begin putting the remaining 4 in storage.

after bob has felt that he has stockpiled enough wood, say 16 pieces, he'll go to joe and say,

"hey, i have all this extra fire wood, and you get one more fish than i do.

let's rearrange the trade. for every fish you give me, i'll give you 3 pieces of fire wood."

joe, seeing the need to begin stockpiling fire wood himself, and knowing that he can't do so while always getting four fish, agrees.

so now bob gets 4 fish and 10 fire wood, where as joe gets 3 fish and 11 fire wood, three of which came from bobs stock pile.

so bob loses 1 piece of wood from his stockpile on every trade, and joe stockpiles 5 pieces of wood.

after this occurs a few times joe will be in a position to begin trading his stock pile of wood.

and they will go back and forth, every time the stock pile of wood will increase.

the fire wood becomes a production based currency.

[Guest]

I fail to see the relevance of discussing the barter system? Our economy is considerably more complex than that. In fact, it's complex enough that actually modeling it mathematically is beyond nightmarish. That's why economics essentially became a soft science.

Also, Grayven, you're right. Who predicted it means very little. The fact of the matter is that where we're at right now is bad, and we need it to become better. However, in weighing whose plans we should listen to in the future, it helps a little to see who could accurately predict the impact events would have on the future. That said: booms typically precede collapses, and anyone who's not bringing a better plan forward is not helping the solution.

[Guest]

The U.S. dropped the gold standard back in 1971 along with the rest of the world. All printed world currency is "fiat money" which means they can and do make as much as they want. Ask John Maynard Keynes what he thought about that, and the gold standard.

Thanks, I wasn't sure if they still did that or not...wow 1971..I must have saw that in some wayyy outdated material

The economy will get better but not before it gets bad enough for the rich to really feel it. That's just starting to happen.

when is bad enough for the rich? The economy completely collapses and the US dollar is worthless? I really am asking cuz I don't know...it seems they could just change their lifestyle a bit (1 million dollar house instead of a 5 million dollar one) and still be better off than most americans...Perhaps them people doing the cash for gold infomercials aren't as stupid as they look...

BTW who cares who gets to say I told you so? The whole world is in trouble, and who predicted it won't get us out of it, nobody listened to them then and nobody will now.

Totally agreed...that's just how I personally feel about some of the people blowing their hot air around..seems like they want to be 'that guy' that tried telling everyone....but your right it doesn't matter who says what and who predicts what...when the sh*t hits the fan it doesn't matter..

[Guest]

fail to see the relevance of discussing the barter system? Our economy is considerably more complex than that. In fact, it's complex enough that actually modeling it mathematically is beyond nightmarish. That's why economics essentially became a soft science.

our system is a barter system with two primary elements added,

1) fractional reserve banking

2) government backing of the banks

i promise that after i add these two elements to the system, you can easily represent our current state.

lesson 3

introducing the bank

we now introduce Mr. A. Banker.

mr. banker has a storage room big enough to hold practically any amount of fire wood for safe keeping.

in exchange for doing so, he charges a small, 1 fire wood a month rate. mr. banker does his own fishing and fire wood gathering and feels that this would be the best way to facilitate trade between joe and bob. joe and bob both agree that the rate is reasonable, and so store their fire wood with mr. banker.

this arrangement works well, until a few years later, joe decides he'd like to build a house. however, joe only has 250 pieces of fire wood in storage and needs 300 pieces to build the house. so joe asks mr. banker for a loan of fire wood. mr. banker agrees and gives joe 50 pieces from his own stock pile, under the condition that joe also pays a 1% interest on the 50 wood piece loan until the loan is paid back. joe agrees. so far no problem. the wood is still a production based currency and both parties benefit from the trade agreement.

Edited August 1, 2009 by phillip1882

[Guest]

lesson 4

introducing the government

for the final piece of the puzzle we introduce P. Olice.

p. olice isn't very good at fishing or wood gathering, but he excels at keeping joe and bob from fighting about the exchange rate between fish and fire wood. so joe and bob often use him as an intermediary, and give him some of their fire wood and fish in exchange for doing so.

p. olice however is not quite satisfied with this, as mr. banker has all this wood, and isn't paying p. olice anything.

so p. olice begins taxing mr. banker to also pay a portion of his fire wood as well, but promises to enforce any debt that joe or bob come into.

lesson 5

introducing fractional reserve banking

well mr banker is not exactly happy with the situation. he doesnt see why he really needs p. olice, he understands that by making a loan, he is taking a risk that the loan won't be paid back, but feels the potential benefit often outweighs the risk. but then he comes to a realization. joe and bob rarely withdraw from their wood stock. by using their money to make loans, he would essentially be taking no risk at all with his own, and could make even more profit. so the next day when bob asks for a loan to build his own house, he sees the perfect opportunity to try his idea out. bob currently has 200 in wood stock, and needs 300. mr banker only has 75, but knows joe also has 100. so without joe's permission, he agrees to bob's request, and takes out 50 from joe's stock pile and 50 from his own. he also charges bob a 2% interest rate, and says this is to combat the taxes levied. bob reluctantly agrees.

[Guest]

First unreality, the US can't take credit for making "some of the earliest great strides against slavery" because while there were a lot of abolitionists here, we were one of the last Western powers to end the practice completely.

Indeed. Most European countries had abolished slavery outright by about 1840, while the US was behind by two whole decades.

I would be interested to have someone state here (as I don't have the time or capacity to watch the videos) exactly what brought us out of the Great Depression if it wasn't the war. I've heard FDR's supporters say the New Deal helped bring us out and the people who couldn't stand FDR said it was the war production. I don't know if I've heard anyone argue that it was something different than either.

There are many economists who believe it had more to do with the suspension of the Gold Standard than anything else. I'm not well-informed enough to argue for or against that point of view, but it is clear that, in the US, the Great Depression was not only long over (~1933), but, by nearly all significant economic indicators, the economy had fully recovered (~1937) nearly five years before US entry into the war (1941).