Income Inequality

Quote

Originally posted by: forkushV
Quote

Originally posted by: CowboyKell
Quote

Originally posted by: forkushV
Yep 1929 was bad.

But then we elected a socialist president, and re-elected him three more times. Things got better.


Calling Roosevelt a socialist by todays standards is a stretch at best.

Why was he so popular? Was it the SEC? the Wagner act? The FDIC? HELL NO, it was the repeal of prohibition!

I will give him my greatest praise for the CCC, you know, the program where men HAD TO WORK to relive them from poverty.

Would his programs had continued to work if it had not been for WWII? Very unlikely.
Back when I was a kid old Democrats would claim that Roosevelt's New Deal programs rescued us from the Great Depression and old Republicans would claim that it was World War II that finally defeated the Great Depression.

Without realizing it, what both sides agreed upon was that it was government stimulus spending that did the trick. Government make-work jobs, whether from the New Deal or the from the war, jump started the economy into recovery and then into growth.

It sounds like you agree with that, CowboyKell. So in the primary, are you voting for Bernie or Hillary?

Why be so limiting? The Republican front runner supports rebuilding our infrastructure....and he's the only one of the three who has....you know.....actually built anything.

donald-trump-is-campaigning-on-the-new-deal

"Trump hasn't put together a specific proposal, but he has described it as a “trillion-dollar rebuilding plan,” which would be “one of the biggest projects this country has ever undertaken.” He also suggests that it would create 13 million jobs."

“A few years ago, Moody’s, the financial investment agency, calculated that every $1 of federal money invested in improving the infrastructure for highways and public schools would generate $1.44 back to the economy,” Trump writes in his offensively titled campaign book. “On the federal level, this is going to be an expensive investment, no question about that. But in the long run it will more than pay for itself.”

And for the record...in the Primary...I'm feeling the Bern...because I think Hillary is dishonest and untrustworthy compared to Bernie....and The Democrats will let an independent vote in the California primary but the Republicans wont.
Quote

Originally posted by: alanleroyII

Why be so limiting? The Republican front runner supports rebuilding our infrastructure....and he's the only one of the three who has....you know.....actually built anything.

donald-trump-is-campaigning-on-the-new-deal

"Trump hasn't put together a specific proposal, but he has described it as a “trillion-dollar rebuilding plan,” which would be “one of the biggest projects this country has ever undertaken.” He also suggests that it would create 13 million jobs."

“A few years ago, Moody’s, the financial investment agency, calculated that every $1 of federal money invested in improving the infrastructure for highways and public schools would generate $1.44 back to the economy,” Trump writes in his offensively titled campaign book. “On the federal level, this is going to be an expensive investment, no question about that. But in the long run it will more than pay for itself.”

And for the record...in the Primary...I'm feeling the Bern...because I think Hillary is dishonest and untrustworthy compared to Bernie....and The Democrats will let an independent vote in the California primary but the Republicans wont.


You mean "shovel ready projects"? Well thats just the silliest thing your average Obama-hater ever heard.



Quote

Originally posted by: pjstroh
Quote

Originally posted by: alanleroyII

Why be so limiting? The Republican front runner supports rebuilding our infrastructure....and he's the only one of the three who has....you know.....actually built anything.

donald-trump-is-campaigning-on-the-new-deal

"Trump hasn't put together a specific proposal, but he has described it as a “trillion-dollar rebuilding plan,” which would be “one of the biggest projects this country has ever undertaken.” He also suggests that it would create 13 million jobs."

“A few years ago, Moody’s, the financial investment agency, calculated that every $1 of federal money invested in improving the infrastructure for highways and public schools would generate $1.44 back to the economy,” Trump writes in his offensively titled campaign book. “On the federal level, this is going to be an expensive investment, no question about that. But in the long run it will more than pay for itself.”

And for the record...in the Primary...I'm feeling the Bern...because I think Hillary is dishonest and untrustworthy compared to Bernie....and The Democrats will let an independent vote in the California primary but the Republicans wont.


You mean "shovel ready projects"? Well thats just the silliest thing your average Obama-hater ever heard.
Well it really is silly if you believe the US Government's unemployment statistics. Since we're obviously at full employment, all this additional spending would do is create inflation not jobs. Keynes would be rollin' in his grave at the thought.

In fact, since the Obama economy is so great, I'm shocked we're not paying off the debt as Keynes prescribed in good years. Instead we're borrowing an extra trillion this year. Looks like we'll exceed 20 Trillion in debt before Obama leaves. Makes no sense. Maybe Paul Ryan has the answers. Maybe the Economy isn't so great.
Quote

Originally posted by: alanleroyII
Quote

Originally posted by: forkushV
Quote

Originally posted by: CowboyKell
Quote

Originally posted by: forkushV
Yep 1929 was bad.

But then we elected a socialist president, and re-elected him three more times. Things got better.


Calling Roosevelt a socialist by todays standards is a stretch at best.

Why was he so popular? Was it the SEC? the Wagner act? The FDIC? HELL NO, it was the repeal of prohibition!

I will give him my greatest praise for the CCC, you know, the program where men HAD TO WORK to relive them from poverty.

Would his programs had continued to work if it had not been for WWII? Very unlikely.
Back when I was a kid old Democrats would claim that Roosevelt's New Deal programs rescued us from the Great Depression and old Republicans would claim that it was World War II that finally defeated the Great Depression.

Without realizing it, what both sides agreed upon was that it was government stimulus spending that did the trick. Government make-work jobs, whether from the New Deal or the from the war, jump started the economy into recovery and then into growth.

It sounds like you agree with that, CowboyKell. So in the primary, are you voting for Bernie or Hillary?
...“A few years ago, Moody’s, the financial investment agency, calculated that every $1 of federal money invested in improving the infrastructure for highways and public schools would generate $1.44 back to the economy,” Trump writes in his offensively titled campaign book. “On the federal level, this is going to be an expensive investment, no question about that. But in the long run it will more than pay for itself.” ...
Dang! Look below at what I posted on this forum two-and-a-half years ago. (The bottom line shows Moody's estimate of bang for the buck from infrastructure spending.)

Do you think Trump lurks here?


Quote

Originally posted by: alanleroyII
Quote

Originally posted by: pjstroh
Quote

Originally posted by: alanleroyII

Why be so limiting? The Republican front runner supports rebuilding our infrastructure....and he's the only one of the three who has....you know.....actually built anything.

donald-trump-is-campaigning-on-the-new-deal

"Trump hasn't put together a specific proposal, but he has described it as a “trillion-dollar rebuilding plan,” which would be “one of the biggest projects this country has ever undertaken.” He also suggests that it would create 13 million jobs."

“A few years ago, Moody’s, the financial investment agency, calculated that every $1 of federal money invested in improving the infrastructure for highways and public schools would generate $1.44 back to the economy,” Trump writes in his offensively titled campaign book. “On the federal level, this is going to be an expensive investment, no question about that. But in the long run it will more than pay for itself.”

And for the record...in the Primary...I'm feeling the Bern...because I think Hillary is dishonest and untrustworthy compared to Bernie....and The Democrats will let an independent vote in the California primary but the Republicans wont.


You mean "shovel ready projects"? Well thats just the silliest thing your average Obama-hater ever heard.
Well it really is silly if you believe the US Government's unemployment statistics. Since we're obviously at full employment, all this additional spending would do is create inflation not jobs. Keynes would be rollin' in his grave at the thought.

In fact, since the Obama economy is so great, I'm shocked we're not paying off the debt as Keynes prescribed in good years. Instead we're borrowing an extra trillion this year. Looks like we'll exceed 20 Trillion in debt before Obama leaves. Makes no sense. Maybe Paul Ryan has the answers. Maybe the Economy isn't so great.


its hard to pay for things with tax cuts. The Bush Tax cuts were supposed to create 20 years of surpluses. And your buddy Paul Ryan is prescribing more of the same.

Keynesian economics directly injects wealth into the economy. Supply side economics gives rich people more wealth and hopes they inject it into the economy.

Anyone who can read a graph can see how well Supply Side economics has injected wealth into the economy vs staying with its original recipients.

Wait, where is the rest? I'm looking forward to seeing how the current president was able to make big changes during his 8 years in office.
Quote

Originally posted by: forkushV
Quote

Originally posted by: alanleroyII
Quote

Originally posted by: forkushV
Quote

Originally posted by: CowboyKell
Quote

Originally posted by: forkushV
Yep 1929 was bad.

But then we elected a socialist president, and re-elected him three more times. Things got better.


Calling Roosevelt a socialist by todays standards is a stretch at best.

Why was he so popular? Was it the SEC? the Wagner act? The FDIC? HELL NO, it was the repeal of prohibition!

I will give him my greatest praise for the CCC, you know, the program where men HAD TO WORK to relive them from poverty.

Would his programs had continued to work if it had not been for WWII? Very unlikely.
Back when I was a kid old Democrats would claim that Roosevelt's New Deal programs rescued us from the Great Depression and old Republicans would claim that it was World War II that finally defeated the Great Depression.

Without realizing it, what both sides agreed upon was that it was government stimulus spending that did the trick. Government make-work jobs, whether from the New Deal or the from the war, jump started the economy into recovery and then into growth.

It sounds like you agree with that, CowboyKell. So in the primary, are you voting for Bernie or Hillary?
...“A few years ago, Moody’s, the financial investment agency, calculated that every $1 of federal money invested in improving the infrastructure for highways and public schools would generate $1.44 back to the economy,” Trump writes in his offensively titled campaign book. “On the federal level, this is going to be an expensive investment, no question about that. But in the long run it will more than pay for itself.” ...
Dang! Look below at what I posted on this forum two-and-a-half years ago. (The bottom line shows Moody's estimate of bang for the buck from infrastructure spending.)

Do you think Trump lurks here?


There is increasing evidence that the multiplier effect is greatly reduced based on public debt to GDP ratios. I suspect that the multiplier is also reduced based on personal debt levels. Since we are at unprecedented levels of world-wide debt, it's hard to predict what if any positive impact additional deficit spending will have on the economy. It's not your granddaddy's fiscal multiplier.

Perhaps this is why after 16 years of massive deficit spending we haven't sniffed 3% growth in any of the last 8 years. Sometimes the old tools don't solve new problems.

Quote

Originally posted by: pjstroh
Quote

Originally posted by: alanleroyII
Quote

Originally posted by: pjstroh
Quote

Originally posted by: alanleroyII

Why be so limiting? The Republican front runner supports rebuilding our infrastructure....and he's the only one of the three who has....you know.....actually built anything.

donald-trump-is-campaigning-on-the-new-deal

"Trump hasn't put together a specific proposal, but he has described it as a “trillion-dollar rebuilding plan,” which would be “one of the biggest projects this country has ever undertaken.” He also suggests that it would create 13 million jobs."

“A few years ago, Moody’s, the financial investment agency, calculated that every $1 of federal money invested in improving the infrastructure for highways and public schools would generate $1.44 back to the economy,” Trump writes in his offensively titled campaign book. “On the federal level, this is going to be an expensive investment, no question about that. But in the long run it will more than pay for itself.”

And for the record...in the Primary...I'm feeling the Bern...because I think Hillary is dishonest and untrustworthy compared to Bernie....and The Democrats will let an independent vote in the California primary but the Republicans wont.


You mean "shovel ready projects"? Well thats just the silliest thing your average Obama-hater ever heard.
Well it really is silly if you believe the US Government's unemployment statistics. Since we're obviously at full employment, all this additional spending would do is create inflation not jobs. Keynes would be rollin' in his grave at the thought.

In fact, since the Obama economy is so great, I'm shocked we're not paying off the debt as Keynes prescribed in good years. Instead we're borrowing an extra trillion this year. Looks like we'll exceed 20 Trillion in debt before Obama leaves. Makes no sense. Maybe Paul Ryan has the answers. Maybe the Economy isn't so great.


its hard to pay for things with tax cuts. The Bush Tax cuts were supposed to create 20 years of surpluses. And your buddy Paul Ryan is prescribing more of the same.

Keynesian economics directly injects wealth into the economy. Supply side economics gives rich people more wealth and hopes they inject it into the economy.

Anyone who can read a graph can see how well Supply Side economics has injected wealth into the economy vs staying with its original recipients.

Paul Ryan is not my 'buddy'. Some people don't recognize sarcasm. Unlike Ryan and President Obama, I support a balanced budget amendment to the constitution as the only way fix our debt problems.

At least Obama used to support a balanced budget. Back when he called Bush Un-Patriotic for running up a measly $5 Trillion. That's something I actually agreed with him on. It is un-patriotic to saddle our grandkids with a $20 trillion dollar debt.

Quote

Originally posted by: alanleroyII
Quote

Originally posted by: forkushV
Quote

Originally posted by: alanleroyII
Quote

Originally posted by: forkushV
Quote

Originally posted by: CowboyKell
Quote

Originally posted by: forkushV
Yep 1929 was bad.

But then we elected a socialist president, and re-elected him three more times. Things got better.


Calling Roosevelt a socialist by todays standards is a stretch at best.

Why was he so popular? Was it the SEC? the Wagner act? The FDIC? HELL NO, it was the repeal of prohibition!

I will give him my greatest praise for the CCC, you know, the program where men HAD TO WORK to relive them from poverty.

Would his programs had continued to work if it had not been for WWII? Very unlikely.
Back when I was a kid old Democrats would claim that Roosevelt's New Deal programs rescued us from the Great Depression and old Republicans would claim that it was World War II that finally defeated the Great Depression.

Without realizing it, what both sides agreed upon was that it was government stimulus spending that did the trick. Government make-work jobs, whether from the New Deal or the from the war, jump started the economy into recovery and then into growth.

It sounds like you agree with that, CowboyKell. So in the primary, are you voting for Bernie or Hillary?
...“A few years ago, Moody’s, the financial investment agency, calculated that every $1 of federal money invested in improving the infrastructure for highways and public schools would generate $1.44 back to the economy,” Trump writes in his offensively titled campaign book. “On the federal level, this is going to be an expensive investment, no question about that. But in the long run it will more than pay for itself.” ...
Dang! Look below at what I posted on this forum two-and-a-half years ago. (The bottom line shows Moody's estimate of bang for the buck from infrastructure spending.)

Do you think Trump lurks here?


There is increasing evidence that the multiplier effect is greatly reduced based on public debt to GDP ratios...
Dude, the primo economists who came to that conclusion had their results turned upside down when five major errors were found in their Excel spreadsheet. It turns out that debt doesn't cause low growth. Instead it turns out that low growth causes........debt!

Anyone who paid attention to the Great Recession of 2007 should have been able to figure that out.
Quote

Originally posted by: forkushV
Quote

Originally posted by: alanleroyII
Quote

Originally posted by: forkushV
Quote

Originally posted by: alanleroyII
Quote

Originally posted by: forkushV
Quote

Originally posted by: CowboyKell
Quote

Originally posted by: forkushV
Yep 1929 was bad.

But then we elected a socialist president, and re-elected him three more times. Things got better.


Calling Roosevelt a socialist by todays standards is a stretch at best.

Why was he so popular? Was it the SEC? the Wagner act? The FDIC? HELL NO, it was the repeal of prohibition!

I will give him my greatest praise for the CCC, you know, the program where men HAD TO WORK to relive them from poverty.

Would his programs had continued to work if it had not been for WWII? Very unlikely.
Back when I was a kid old Democrats would claim that Roosevelt's New Deal programs rescued us from the Great Depression and old Republicans would claim that it was World War II that finally defeated the Great Depression.

Without realizing it, what both sides agreed upon was that it was government stimulus spending that did the trick. Government make-work jobs, whether from the New Deal or the from the war, jump started the economy into recovery and then into growth.

It sounds like you agree with that, CowboyKell. So in the primary, are you voting for Bernie or Hillary?
...“A few years ago, Moody’s, the financial investment agency, calculated that every $1 of federal money invested in improving the infrastructure for highways and public schools would generate $1.44 back to the economy,” Trump writes in his offensively titled campaign book. “On the federal level, this is going to be an expensive investment, no question about that. But in the long run it will more than pay for itself.” ...
Dang! Look below at what I posted on this forum two-and-a-half years ago. (The bottom line shows Moody's estimate of bang for the buck from infrastructure spending.)

Do you think Trump lurks here?


There is increasing evidence that the multiplier effect is greatly reduced based on public debt to GDP ratios...
Dude, the primo economists who came to that conclusion had their results turned upside down when five major errors were found in their Excel spreadsheet. .
There have been multiple studies on this. Were they all 'turned upside down'? My view is that the Marginal Propensity to Consume has changed as people have increased their personal debt. Instead of buying stuff, they are making payments on stuff they've already bought. If they get some extra money, they use it to pay down debt rather than on more stuff. That has to impact the fiscal multiplier which has assumed a constant MPC.

Hell, let's just look at the bottom line. We have Record US Government Spending Levels for each of the last 8 years. We have Record Deficit spending for the last 8 years. Yet not one year exceeded 3% growth coming out of a major recession. This has never before happened in US economic history. How do YOU explain it? We didn't borrow enough? We didn't spend enough? We didn't tax enough? Inquiring minds want to know why it this massive federal spending and borrowing isn't working like you claim it should.

Already a LVA subscriber?
To continue reading, choose an option below:
Diamond Membership
$3 per month
Unlimited access to LVA website
Exclusive subscriber-only content
Limited Member Rewards Online
Join Now
or
Platinum Membership
$50 per year
Unlimited access to LVA website
Exclusive subscriber-only content
Exclusive Member Rewards Book
Join Now