If the US government has unlimited and debt and deficits are great.....

[JDeuce]

Ask him about the Weimar Republic and you'll get the usual obfuscation and truckload of insults.

Scary and sad, indeed.

Weimar wasn't the only one.

http://www.businessinsider.com/worst-hyperinflation-episodes-in-history-2013-9?op=1

Take a look at those. Hungary in the mid-40s, the worst of the worst...prices of everything doubling every 15 hours? It's mind boggling to even think about that happening.

Of course, that could NEVER happen here. Never. Because our money is green, and it must be something in the air over there in Europe...or something...

So let me get this straight...our government could just print their own money and go tax-free, yet they choose not to because that somehow helps fight inflation? Every day when you think he can't get any more idiotic, he just continues to reach for new stars...

 

[scottcarter]

Like I said, your definition of "wasted" is pure conjecture. I need real math, not your opinion.



You are missing the point completely, those in 1937 did not know the debt in 2014 would be $17 trillion. If you told them that they probably would have rioted because it's "such a big scary number". The point was not to compare the two periods, it's to get you to question whether or not $17 trillion is actually "too big of a number". In 1937 people like you could not be talked out of it. They were so confident that $40 billion was such a problem that they decided to cut government spending by 20%. One of the largest non-post war cuts in US history. That cut lasted less than a year because it sent the economy right back in to a depression.

The math is not on your side. Everything you just said here is silly if that's what you consider facts that $17 trillion is too much debt.

wouldn't you agree that 2014 and 1937 were two totally different eras? And comparing them is basically pointless? That is what I was trying to show you when you brought up the 40 billion in 1937. So many things are different now. and in 70 years, they will also be.

You want real math? 17 trillion. Its scary because its so big. You will never convince common sense people that its a good thing. The reason you won't is because you can't. There is no formula or math that you can prove it's a good thing. Sorry.

 

[akphidelt]

wouldn't you agree that 2014 and 1937 were two totally different eras? And comparing them is basically pointless? That is what I was trying to show you when you brought up the 40 billion in 1937. So many things are different now. and in 70 years, they will also be.

You want real math? 17 trillion. Its scary because its so big. You will never convince common sense people that its a good thing. The reason you won't is because you can't. There is no formula or math that you can prove it's a good thing. Sorry.

I'm not comparing them. You are comparing them, I'm talking about the thought process of debt.

So like I said, your reasoning that the debt is too big is because it's a big scary number. Very solid, you should write an econ paper about it and get it peer reviewed. Maybe you'll win the Nobel Prize. "$17 trillion is a big scary number. The End!"

 

[akphidelt]

So let me get this straight...our government could just print their own money and go tax-free, yet they choose not to because that somehow helps fight inflation? Every day when you think he can't get any more idiotic, he just continues to reach for new stars...

Well yea. If they didn't tax and spent $3 trillion, that would be very inflationary. Not really rocket science to understand that, lol. You guys are dumb. That's why you converse with Sheriff Joe. Poor fella.

 

[MantisToboggan]

That was a common theory for a while. But since Japan has proven many economists wrong with this theory, there is a lot of economists that are starting to drift away to whether this is a problem or not. Even Ben Bernanke said they have no clue what is a "bad" debt to GDP ratio, if there even is one.

Just because we haven't found the tipping point yet does not mean it doesn't exist.

 

[SheriffJoe]

Just because we haven't found the tipping point yet does not mean it doesn't exist.

It's over.

Keynesian economics is dead.

 

[scottcarter]

I'm not comparing them. You are comparing them, I'm talking about the thought process of debt.

So like I said, your reasoning that the debt is too big is because it's a big scary number. Very solid, you should write an econ paper about it and get it peer reviewed. Maybe you'll win the Nobel Prize. "$17 trillion is a big scary number. The End!"

ok show me how 17 trillion is good? Maybe you can win the Nobel prize like Obama did for doing nothing. You compared 1937 first. I showed you how they aren't the same thing is all. Then the merry go round started.

 

[MantisToboggan]

That was a common theory for a while. But since Japan has proven many economists wrong with this theory, there is a lot of economists that are starting to drift away to whether this is a problem or not. Even Ben Bernanke said they have no clue what is a "bad" debt to GDP ratio, if there even is one.

You're a big fan of Abenomics, yeah?

 

[akphidelt]

You're a big fan of Abenomics, yeah?

Even before Abenomics. But yes, I'm a big fan of it. Japan has a unique situation with the fact their population is decreasing. If you look at their real gdp per capita even during the lost decades it is right up there with the United States and other developed countries. Kind of hard to increase your countries productivity when you have less people.

 

[Dave007inVegas]

Above and beyond everything else, that is the thing that burns my ass the most. It’s called arrogant irresponsibility.

Speaking of arrogant irresponsibility.

I don’t give a fuck if he is the POTUS. C’mon man!

In late March, President Obama took a week-long trip through Europe which included a stop of less than 24 hours in Brussels, Belgium for meetings with the European Union and NATO. The president stayed at The Hotel, a twenty-seven story hotel in the center of the city. The estimated cost for the president's stay, including about two weeks for an advance team, was $1,522,646.36.

That's $11,446 an hour. Wasted money indeed.

 

[akphidelt]

ok show me how 17 trillion is good? Maybe you can win the Nobel prize like Obama did for doing nothing. You compared 1937 first. I showed you how they aren't the same thing is all. Then the merry go round started.

I didn't compare it. I was talking about their thought process in 1937 about $40 billion in debt just to give you an example that people fearing large numbers is not new. It was not meant to compare the two economies.

And I'm including intragovernmental debt in this even though it does not matter.

Anyone who can look at this graph and say debt is bad needs their head examined.

 

[MantisToboggan]

Even before Abenomics. But yes, I'm a big fan of it. Japan has a unique situation with the fact their population is decreasing. If you look at their real gdp per capita even during the lost decades it is right up there with the United States and other developed countries. Kind of hard to increase your countries productivity when you have less people.

Absolutely. Japan is up against some very difficult demographic trends. Interesting that, even with Abenomics, real wages have dropped for 8 consecutive months. Will also be interesting to see how the consumption tax increase plays out.

 

[SheriffJoe]

You're a big fan of Abenomics, yeah?

Abenomics is dead. lol

http://www.forbes.com/sites/investor/2014/03/17/is-abenomics-about-to-fail/

Another bust for fratclown-onomics.

 

[akphidelt]

Absolutely. Japan is up against some very difficult demographic trends. Interesting that, even with Abenomics, real wages have dropped for 8 consecutive months. Will also be interesting to see how the consumption tax increase plays out.

I honestly don't get the tax increases. Kind of counterproductive to stimulative measures. They increase spending and increase taking at the same time, lol. I would like to understand what their rationale behind the tax increases are.

 

[MantisToboggan]

I honestly don't get the tax increases. Kind of counterproductive to stimulative measures. They increase spending and increase taking at the same time, lol. I would like to understand what their rationale behind the tax increases are.

That we can agree on. It makes absolutely no sense at all.

 

[akphidelt]

That we can agree on. It makes absolutely no sense at all.

Sweet, we agree on something, lol. I'm all about the Ronald Reagan approach. Cut taxes, spend like a drunken sailor... let the private sector boom!!

 

[scottcarter]

I honestly don't get the tax increases. Kind of counterproductive to stimulative measures. They increase spending and increase taking at the same time, lol. I would like to understand what their rationale behind the tax increases are.

+1

 

[MantisToboggan]

Sweet, we agree on something, lol. I'm all about the Ronald Reagan approach. Cut taxes, spend like a drunken sailor... let the private sector boom!!

Haha. Would certainly be nice to get the private sector booming again.

 

[akphidelt]

Haha. Would certainly be nice to get the private sector booming again.

Cut taxes, spend money! Easy solution. The problem is there is this huge push for deficit reduction which is why tax increases are talked about, spending cuts are discussed, etc. We should take the Reagan approach. It will change eventually though, more and more economists are realizing that Government debt is not something to worry about as it was in the past.

 

[scottcarter]

...