Originally Posted by Wallace 88

What you arer describing is a perpetual motion machine. What you're forgetting is that, someday, someone gets to pay for that "injection."

Or are you going to give us another heaping helping of MMT?

Capitalism is a perpetual motion machine.

Anyone who thinks infinite exponential growth is both possible and desirable is either insane or an economist.

Originally Posted by The Rani

Oh my, such a scolding!

Here's the quote:

You are taking my comment out of context, using it to imply that I think welfare recipients would rather be on welfare than have a job. And you KNEW you were taking it out of context, don't play dumb.

Originally Posted by Aramea

This is extraordinarily difficult to explain to a Randian true-believer, but I give you props for trying. I, myself, have given up. I did get it through to my step-father, at which time he said "so, we still have to reduce spending because of the deficit". Four sentences don't go by until he says "Obama is bad because unemployment is still over 8 percent". Those are two opposing concepts in today's economy. They cannot tie that knot and I am tired of saying it. Reducing the deficit will increase unemployment, and to-the-moon unemployment is A-OK as long as a Republican is in charge. It is an urgent problem when a Dem is in charge.

I can see how reducing the deficit would reduce funding and eliminate jobs in the process. I can also see how interest payments on the debt will exceed the cost of Obama's Stimulus and bite into funding unless its financially supported with more debt.

As this does not appear to be a Regeneracy, I suspect this election will be determined by a familiar pattern-people voting against a candidate, rather than for one.

Originally Posted by playwrite

I realize that with your closed mind, this is pretty useless to try to explain; however, what the heck...

By "injection," I believe you mean federal govt spending, and more specifically federal deficit spending which is the spending that exceeds federal revenues.

It terms of taxes, you are not paying for it now, because as noted above, this is spending beyond current taxes.

Will taxes pay for it later then? No because the feds don't use tax money to payoff federal debt. Instead, they roll the entire federal debt over about every three months through the bond market. The feds pay off old bonds, issue new bonds, and bond buyers that just got their old bonds paid off then re-stash their non-interest bearing securities (i.e., money) back into interest-bearing securities (i.e. new T-bills). That's the way it's worked since the country was founded and that's the way it will work into the future.

So, how can we eventually, if ever, pay for the govt "injections" of money into the economy? The answer is that we could pay through higher prices for everything in the economy. That is called demand-pull inflation and it occurs when there is too much demand for the economy to supply. "Injections" (i.e. govt spending) can tip the economy into demand-pull inflation if there already is sufficient demand from private sector spending - the best sign that such a situation exist is that there is full employment.

Is there sufficient demand from private sector spending today? No.

Will there be sufficient private sector spending in the future (i.e. full employment) that would make govt "injections" inflationary? No one knows the future.

What we do know is that the global economy is getting better and better at supply with less and less need to pay people. At a minimum, that means full employment is very unlikely. It also means that there is substantial potential for DE-flationary pressure on the economy; perhaps enough so that govt injections are the only way to keep up demand in order to maintain, let alone grow, the economy.

People who want less federal spending essentially want less income for a vast number of people. And with less income, those people are going to be spending less and reducing the incomes of other people, and so it goes - keeping the economy mired if not putting it into a deflationary spiral.

This is not rocket science. One just needs a mind open enough to learn something, but like I said earlier that is basically a problem with you.

Will it last forever? How long does faith last? At what point do investors, banks and taxpayers completely loose faith?

*Ahem*

Originally Posted by Odin

Calling another poster a troll is not cool.

But,(in response to Rani):

Originally Posted by Odin

I am getting sick of your trollish behavior.

<giggle>


Prince

PS:!

Originally Posted by princeofcats67

*Ahem*

Odin's penchant for throwing negative labels at other posters here can be pretty funny.

Julian Castro = future president of the US. That guy is going places!

I'm enjoying the Democratic convention, cause I guess it beats doing what I know I should be doing, but feel too tired or lazy to do.

Michelle Obama is so genuine; I was impressed at how she can come on stage in front of the nation and explain why she still loves her husband despite being president, and why his policies are right, and not make us feel she is trying to impress anybody, but just sharing what she knows and what she feels. Mark Shields called it genius. Gov. Deval Patrick of Massachussetts did a good job of contrasting his record with Romney's as governor, as well as telling Democrats to get a backbone and not let Obama be "bullied" out of office.

Originally Posted by playwrite

So now you want to take incomes away from working folks???

This is what the dumb-as-dirt folks don't get - one person's spending is another person's income. The funds that the federal govt injects into the economy - by either buying goods and services directly or by paying some one (e.g. welfare, SS, Medicare, military, govt workers) - provides incomes to 100s of millions of people who then in turn spend to provide incomes to 100s of millions of people.

Fortunately, I'm not as dumb as dirt. I identified those connections long before you saw the light and fell in line with Bush Republicans as far as taxation is concerned.

Originally Posted by playwrite

The question is whether the govt is spending too much or too little into the economy and, in combination with the spending by the private sector, causing prices to rise or fall. That depends on the current economic situation.

The question is whether the government is spending to much and getting little or nothing back as far as returns and results.

Originally Posted by playwrite

Tell me, Sherlock, do you think there's too much or too little demand in the economy right now? Because if you think like most people there’s too little, then why do you want to take further income away from hard working people by reducing the spending done by people on welfare? Seems just a little… well, how can I say this, oh yea…. seems more than just a little STUPID!

Tell me, Sherlock, what's it going to take to stimulate me. I can sprinkle a helluva lot more money and generate a lot more business than female airheads and dirt cheap labor.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

I'm enjoying the Democratic convention, cause I guess it beats doing what I know I should be doing, but feel too tired or lazy to do.

Michelle Obama is so genuine; I was impressed at how she can come on stage in front of the nation and explain why she still loves her husband despite being president, and why his policies are right, and not make us feel she is trying to impress anybody, but just sharing what she knows and what she feels. Mark Shields called it genius. Gov. Deval Patrick of Massachussetts did a good job of contrasting his record with Romney's as governor, as well as telling Democrats to get a backbone and not let Obama be "bullied" out of office.

I'm not even going to watch the Democratic convention this time because I don't expect to see or hear anything new.

Originally Posted by Exile 67'

I'm not even going to watch the Democratic convention this time because I don't expect to see or hear anything new.

You sure you are not talking about the Republican convention? How many times can anyone sit and listen again to trickle-down economics and all of its tired slogans?

But no, I don't expect to hear anything new at the Democon either. Conventions are rarely allowed these days to permit anything new. They are just political infomercials. But they do allow us to hear the candidates and the other party big shots make their case directly instead of in short sound bites.

Originally Posted by playwrite

What I believe is that it is too easy to distract and manipulate people like you by playing on your fears of becoming even more incapable of dealing in the real world.

I believe it is much too easy to get you to believe there are bogymen keeping you from obtaining your fantasyland of magic ponies pooping out gold nuggets and freedom fries.

And I know you won't change. BUT, your current ability as a group to stymie progress will.

Tic, tic, tic....

blah, blah, blah, blah. Come on, a clever player like you should be able to come back with something better than this s***.

I have been obliged to see some of the Democratic National Convention only as recorded video -- but so far I can say that the Democrats know what words are for -- as structure for action and the change of conscience and consciousness.

If three words describe well what makes the successful meeting of the challenges of a 4T not only possible but meaningful, those words are kindness, caution, and conscience -- and Democratic speakers get them as the Republicans don't.

But what I have seen at both conventions only reinforces what I have thought all along:

That the Republicans are the party of Spike TV, while the Democrats are the party of the Lifetime Channel.

Originally Posted by Exile 67'

I'm not even going to watch the Democratic convention this time because I don't expect to see or hear anything new.

Sounds like a nice safe self-fulfilling prophecy. Thing is, with the way values work, even if something new were said, so many wouldn't be able to hear it.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

I have been obliged to see some of the Democratic National Convention only as recorded video -- but so far I can say that the Democrats know what words are for -- as structure for action and the change of conscience and consciousness.

If three words describe well what makes the successful meeting of the challenges of a 4T not only possible but meaningful, those words are kindness, caution, and conscience -- and Democratic speakers get them as the Republicans don't.

I guess, if you're the type who is mezmorized and drawn in by long eloquent speeches and kind words and saintly slogans and other liberal pump'em up and liberal make'em believe stuff then watching Democrats speak to you on TV is where you should be and where you belong for the rest of your life.

The difference between Romney seeking votes in Massachusetts and Romney seeking votes in the middle of the country was quite impressive, no?

Originally Posted by B Butler

Sounds like a nice safe self-fulfilling prophecy. Thing is, with the way values work, even if something new were said, so many wouldn't be able to hear it.

I hear what you're saying. I'm sorry folks, we just don't have the capital, the courage or the clout to radically change AMERICA is something the blue tribe or cult doesn't want to hear coming out of the mouth of their chosen leader who is supposed to be the human with devine powers.

Originally Posted by B Butler

Perhaps in your dictionary.

In common usage. You have to recognize that "working folks" and "working people" are terms of the labor movement. Despite the presence of "work" as four of its letters, it has nothing to with whether or not one works; many people work who are not "working folks." "Working folks" are the lower class (although not the lowest class -- that's inhabited by the unemployed/unemployable). Members of the upper class usually work -- in fact, almost everyone works. But they are not "working folks."

Originally Posted by Exile 67'

I hear what you're saying. I'm sorry folks, we just don't have the capital, the courage or the clout to radically change AMERICA is something the blue tribe or cult doesn't want to hear coming out of the mouth of their chosen leader

It's also not the entire truth. We do have the capital. Whether we have the courage to take it from those who are hogging it and put it to use remains to be seen, though.

Originally Posted by Exile 67'

I hear what you're saying. I'm sorry folks, we just don't have the capital, the courage or the clout to radically change AMERICA is something the blue tribe or cult doesn't want to hear coming out of the mouth of their chosen leader who is supposed to be the human with devine powers.

I really don't understand your point here. I haven't heard anything new re: the political arena in quite some time, much less anything RADICAL. How do you perceive the Democrats trying to radically change America via a human with divine powers? All I have heard is "rich people need to pony up for some stimulus if they won't create some jobs". That is hardly new, radical or magic.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

It's also not the entire truth. We do have the capital. Whether we have the courage to take it from those who are hogging it and put it to use remains to be seen, though.

It's just that they seek not to invest until their dream out of an Ayn Rand novel (a nightmare for the rest of us) is achieved. We all know how that goes -- the elites crack the whip and issue the barest sustenance of life and nothing more as they see fit.

Originally Posted by B Butler

The difference between Romney seeking votes in Massachusetts and Romney seeking votes in the middle of the country was quite impressive, no?

Romney's record and list of accomplishments and his achievements pretty much speak for themselves. Romney's a leader and there is little doubt about his abilities and skills as a leader. He doesn't have to seek the votes because the votes are already there. Obama, on the hand, is a pup as far as leadership is concerned and there is plenty of doubt about his abilities and skills as a leader. He's got to seek votes with the debt scale rising as he's delivering his liberal speech of plenty on Fox News channel.

Originally Posted by Odin

Julian Castro = future president of the US. That guy is going places!

I did like his speech a lot. :