• U.S. economy poised to accelerate
    91 replies, posted
[QUOTE=bohb;39717087]It's better to just ignore economists in general, they'll say anything to get people to listen to them. They've been saying the economy has been on an "upward trend" since forever, yet the economy just keeps getting worse. I think that they're so full of themselves in thinking what they say in words has some sort of measurable impact on the condition of the economy (hint: it doesn't.) As long as Congress continues to be a bunch of children and continually throw sissy fits over completely pointless things rather than do their job, nothing is going to get better. The middle class in America was shafted once all of those free trade agreements were signed. Nobody wants to pay an American middle class worker $15-25/hr when they can ship the labor to India or china for the same amount of work at just pennies on the dollar a day. All that's left in many areas are minimum wage retail/food service jobs that you're fighting unemployed middle class workers desperate for a job, as well as illegal immigrants which are often paid under the table less than minimum wage by companies not even wanting to pay legal workers. There's also the upper class jobs that are far out of reach, unless you want to be $100,000+ in debt for college, and you aren't even guaranteed to get the job.[/QUOTE] The economy has been on an upwards trend since forever quite literally, at least in terms of the United States' gross domestic product ([url]https://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&met_y=ny_gdp_mktp_cd&idim=country:USA&dl=en&hl=en&q=us%20gdp[/url]). Other areas such as the US unemployment rate have also been going down for quite a while as well ([url]https://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=z1ebjpgk2654c1_&met_y=unemployment_rate&idim=country:US&fdim_y=seasonality:S&dl=en&hl=en&q=us%20unemployment%20graph[/url]). The global financial crisis did cause a temporary decline in GDP and employment, but it's been getting back in shape since '09 and is back on growth. I don't think you understand that economists like Friedman are actually qualified in what they do, they shouldn't be ignored. Opinions like yours should be because there is no basis, no experience, no qualification behind them.
[QUOTE=Antdawg;39717359]The economy has been on an upwards trend since forever quite literally, at least in terms of the United States' gross domestic product ([url]https://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&met_y=ny_gdp_mktp_cd&idim=country:USA&dl=en&hl=en&q=us%20gdp[/url]). Other areas such as the US unemployment rate have also been going down for quite a while as well ([url]https://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=z1ebjpgk2654c1_&met_y=unemployment_rate&idim=country:US&fdim_y=seasonality:S&dl=en&hl=en&q=us%20unemployment%20graph[/url]).[/QUOTE] The GDP of a country is not this magic number that represents the condition of the entirety of the countries' economy. The same can be said about the unemployment index maintained by the government. The way the unemployment index is maintained is severely flawed and is widely known to not be anywhere near accurate. It's also known to be manipulated by politicians to make themselves look better. [QUOTE=Antdawg;39717359]The global financial crisis did cause a temporary decline in GDP and employment, but it's been getting back in shape since '09 and is back on growth.[/QUOTE] Growth? Where? if you mean the growing amount of shit spewing out of politicians asses' then you'd be correct, but as far as [U]well paying middle class jobs[/U] then you'd be terribly incorrect. [QUOTE=Antdawg;39717359]Opinions like yours should be because there is no basis, no experience, no qualification behind them.[/QUOTE] Hey, you'd make a great politician. Getting on your high-horse because you went to some lucrative law school and don't have to deal with the "riff-raff" of plebeians that can't find work because there are no jobs.
[QUOTE=bohb;39717087]It's better to just ignore doctors in general, they'll say anything to get people to listen to them. They've been saying my body has been better since forever, yet the it just keeps getting worse. I think that they're so full of themselves in thinking what they say in words has some sort of measurable impact on the condition of my body (hint: it doesn't.) As long as doctors continue to be a bunch of children and continually throw sissy fits over completely pointless things rather than do their job, nothing is going to get better.[/QUOTE] See, I can ignore professional opinions when they don't fit my worldview too!
[QUOTE=areolop;39715067]I dont know if people here understand economics..so that might be confusing to most[/QUOTE] [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hXC9FI1nAqs[/media]
[QUOTE=Appellation;39715623]Wow that parable works really well on the micro level for that specific scenario (he doesn't have a decent amount of cash in reserve that he can use to buy say, both a pane of glass and shoes, and would spend all of the money he could) Isn't it great how things always scale up perfectly and are so applicable to so many diverse possible scenarios that we can just post links to them like that, without further explanation? It's like when cable news compares the finances of the government to the finances of a household, economics is just that simple of a subject. :smile:[/QUOTE] I don't think you understand the point. The point is that when a window is smashed, money must be spent replacing it that would be otherwise spent on something else. We scale it up. A war is inherently destructive, with it expending bullets and lives. Scaling it up of course, it can be taken to see that every penny spent on warfare is taking a penny away from education or clothing the hungry. Japan for instance, doesn't have a proper army, so it can actually spend a lot of its money on public works that actually benefit people, rather than an army.
[QUOTE=Gekkosan;39714982]Legalizing the ganja would give a boost to the economy.[/QUOTE] it also cures male pattern baldness, solves world hunger, and makes everyone's penises bigger! even women!
[QUOTE=kanesenpai~;39717951]it also cures male pattern baldness, solves world hunger, and makes everyone's penises bigger! even women![/QUOTE] i hear it cures cancer and gives you cancer at the same time
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;39717855]I don't think you understand the point. The point is that when a window is smashed, money must be spent replacing it that would be otherwise spent on something else. We scale it up. A war is inherently destructive, with it expending bullets and lives. Scaling it up of course, it can be taken to see that every penny spent on warfare is taking a penny away from education or clothing the hungry. Japan for instance, doesn't have a proper army, so it can actually spend a lot of its money on public works that actually benefit people, rather than an army.[/QUOTE] That doesn't really apply here, though, because going by that analogy america got out of the depression by the money it made fixing europe's windows.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;39715031][url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window[/url][/QUOTE] We jumped out of a recession because everyone went to work in factories to make the weapons of war. We did not get out of the recession for helping rebuild war torn Europe.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;39717855]I don't think you understand the point. The point is that when a window is smashed, money must be spent replacing it that would be otherwise spent on something else. We scale it up. A war is inherently destructive, with it expending bullets and lives. Scaling it up of course, it can be taken to see that every penny spent on warfare is taking a penny away from education or clothing the hungry. Japan for instance, doesn't have a proper army, so it can actually spend a lot of its money on public works that actually benefit people, rather than an army.[/QUOTE] Japan is actually a great example of a country that benefited from war. It was devastated by world war 2, which forced it to rebuild. Windows aren't always windows. They're often heavy machinery (needs to be replaced, but creates a short term loss and a long term gain, the short term loss can a CEO look bad. There's more to it than that, but your basic problem is that you are viewing macroeconomics from a microeconomic viewpoint. You should learn the criticisms of the views you espouse so that you can come up with better retorts than "you don't understand" and "money is finite". [editline]25th February 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Sobotnik;39717855] The point is that when a window is smashed, money must be spent replacing it that would be otherwise spent on something else.[/QUOTE] What makes you assume it would be spent on something else? Or that the 'something else' it would be spent on would be as economically stimulating as replacing the 'pane of glass'? [editline]25th February 2013[/editline] Psst: money isn't exactly finite, it's more complicated than that. [editline]25th February 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Sobotnik;39717855]...We scale it up... [/QUOTE] No, we don't. We look at MACROeconomic DATA.
[QUOTE=Appellation;39718129]Japan is actually a great example of a country that benefited from war. It was devastated by world war 2, which forced it to rebuild. Windows aren't always windows. They're often heavy machinery (needs to be replaced, but creates a short term loss and a long term gain, the short term loss can a CEO look bad. There's more to it than that, but your basic problem is that you are viewing macroeconomics from a microeconomic viewpoint. You should learn the criticisms of the views you espouse so that you can come up with better retorts than "you don't understand" and "money is finite".[/quote] Except destroying machinery doesn't actually increase wealth. [quote]What makes you assume it would be spent on something else? Or that the 'something else' it would be spent on would be as economically stimulating as replacing the 'pane of glass'?[/quote] Because the pane of glass is something being destroyed, and if you had an entire industry built around replacing windows that were intentionally destroyed, that is actually a waste. [quote]Psst: money isn't exactly finite, it's more complicated than that.[/quote] Well wealth is finite. [quote]No, we don't. We look at MACROeconomic DATA.[/QUOTE] Except you're not making any gains by destroying something and replacing it. [editline]26th February 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=assassin_Raptor;39718101]We jumped out of a recession because everyone went to work in factories to make the weapons of war. We did not get out of the recession for helping rebuild war torn Europe.[/QUOTE] Except again, the factory workers were working to create products that were ultimately intended to be wasted.
Please take a Macroeconomics course when you get to college. If I manage to find my old principles of macro book, I'll upload some helpful charts. I'm pretty sure it's the only 200 level one I kept, all I can seem to find, when it comes to economics, are books on international trade.
I hope nobody dead legs us
[QUOTE=koeniginator;39714463]we got out of the great depression because of WWII the logical course of action is to start WW3[/QUOTE] senator armstrong what are you doing here
[QUOTE=Appellation;39718474]Please take a Macroeconomics course when you get to college. If I manage to find my old principles of macro book, I'll upload some helpful charts. I'm pretty sure it's the only 200 level one I kept, all I can seem to find, when it comes to economics, are books on international trade.[/QUOTE] You didn't address my points. Destroying wealth doesn't make things better.
[QUOTE=koeniginator;39714463]we got out of the great depression because of WWII the logical course of action is to start WW3[/QUOTE] in the aftermath we could build a new economy on selling rocks and sticks
lol if you seriously think world war 3, if it ever happened, wouldn't destroy basically everything
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;39718410]Except destroying machinery doesn't actually increase wealth. Because the pane of glass is something being destroyed, and if you had an entire industry built around replacing windows that were intentionally destroyed, that is actually a waste. Well wealth is finite. Except you're not making any gains by destroying something and replacing it. [editline]26th February 2013[/editline] Except again, the factory workers were working to create products that were ultimately intended to be wasted.[/QUOTE] Yea, I watched the video and now I understand it.
[QUOTE=King Tiger;39717733]I have an extra chromosome and ride the short bus[/QUOTE] See, I can edit quotes too!
[quote][URL=http://imgur.com/kiCEKxB][IMG]http://i.imgur.com/kiCEKxB.jpg[/IMG][/URL][/quote] [editline]25th February 2013[/editline] [url]http://appellation.imgur.com/all/[/url] I hope these will tide you over until I find what I'm looking for.
[QUOTE=Appellation;39718923][[img]http://i.imgur.com/kiCEKxB.jpg[/img][/QUOTE] I was annoyed that you put it sideways, and what's more, didn't actually address my argument yet. Yes, those countries DID rebuild from scratch, but that didn't create a net benefit at all. All the dead people, and wasted money on armaments, healthcare, repairing damage from explosions, all the burned crops and all, actually were a net-loss. You still lost more from war than the gains made after.
[quote] [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/FyQNbVA.jpg[/IMG] [/quote]
[QUOTE=Appellation;39719128][/QUOTE] Posting pictures of "introductory economics" isn't a good way to show your worth. You have to actually look at a persons point, and select a specific quote from the book which refutes it. Doing what you are doing right now only just shows you haven't learned the material to a degree you feel confident enough to argue without using that book solely. Then of course, there's a problem that the book might not back up your opposition to my statements at all.
You ignore capital goods (factories and machines). There isn't an infinite workforce. They have to balance creating and updating capital goods and creating consumer goods. The destruction of old capital goods forces the balance in favor of creating more capital goods, which is a good thing long term, rather than consumer goods, which would be a good thing short term. We're not always moving towards the future at full speed. We have to make choices. [editline]25th February 2013[/editline] The issue is that you simply don't have enough of a grasp of Macroeconomics to debate this [editline]25th February 2013[/editline] [quote][IMG]http://www.imgur.com/EKihDb2.jpeg[/IMG][/quote] You have to understand this ^ to have any idea how foolish you sound. [editline]25th February 2013[/editline] I'm not backing up my points, I'm educating you so you can understand them.
[QUOTE=Appellation;39719190]You ignore capital goods (factories and machines).[/quote] These are destroyed in a war. You have to replace them, and ultimately that does not create wealth. [quote]There isn't an infinite workforce.[/quote] ? [quote]They have to balance creating and updating capital goods and creating consumer goods.[/quote] Is it not a problem when capital and consumer goods are needlessly destroyed? [quote]The destruction of old capital goods forces the balance in favor of creating more capital goods, which is a good thing long term, rather than consumer goods, which would be a good thing short term.[/quote] Except the businesses with less efficient machinery would either die out, or be forced to upgrade when their competition did. Warfare inherently wastes capital and consumer goods. [quote]We're not always moving towards the future at full speed. We have to make choices.[/quote] What? [quote]The issue is that you simply don't have enough of a grasp of Macroeconomics to debate this[/QUOTE] But you don't even address my point (warfare is inherently destructive and destroys capital/consumer goods).
Also, I'm using three different books. I'm trying to keep this 200 level or below.
[QUOTE=Appellation;39719190] You have to understand this ^ to have any idea how foolish you sound. [editline]25th February 2013[/editline] I'm not backing up my points, I'm educating you so you can understand them.[/QUOTE] Despite being an incredibly condescending cock, you firstly assume I don't understand economics, and secondly, you don't actually explain why I am wrong. [editline]26th February 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Appellation;39719239]Also, I'm using three different books. I'm trying to keep this 200 level or below.[/QUOTE] Well you could start asking me random questions about economics to top it off if you want.
[quote] Except the businesses with less efficient machinery would either die out, or be forced to upgrade when their competition did. Warfare inherently wastes capital and consumer goods.[/quote] Doesn't always happen fast enough. Why would it? Is there perfect competition in every area of business? Who would be the first to update, and why? What about monopolies?
[QUOTE=Appellation;39719264]Doesn't always happen fast enough. Why would it? Is there perfect competition in every area of business? Who would be the first to update, and why? What about monopolies?[/QUOTE] And you suggest that a war is the best means of resolving these problems?
No, but it can. That's all I've been arguing. While you've been arguing that war invariably slows down progress and/or economic growth. [editline]25th February 2013[/editline] Posting links to "Wikipedia " isn't a good way to show your worth.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.