Let's Talk Economics. (Feel free to come on in, KC)

Venus04d

Paul Krugman, Nobel Peace Prize of Economics winner was on The Colbert Report two nights ago. He made an interesting comparison of Mitt Romney's economic plan/run of the mill Republican fiscal platform to that of Ireland's governments fiscal policy. They are now in a total economic quagmire. Article abouts it below:

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/19/paul-krugman-ireland-is-r_n_1609089.html

He also spoke about Sweden being the ultimate welfare state and yet their economy is doing fairly well in comparison to the rest of the world. I missed the first debate where we discussed Sweden.

So, yeah...discuss.

write2nicole

We watched that last night! It was fabulous.

Yes, I think that generally, laying off government workers and cutting spending is going to have a negative effect on the economy. In great economic times, it might not be noticeable, but today? Yes, that would be a big problem.

I also don't believe that cutting taxes for the rich or for big corporations adds any jobs at all.

PrincessFiona9

I've never taken an econ class and I don't claim to have a lot of knowledge about econ in our country let alone other countries, but I heard some great things about Sweden. I wouldn't mind paying higher taxes for things like health care and education and maternity leave. It would mean less out of pocket costs for these things, right?

LuckyDad

Although I generally like him, Paul Krugman is considered a fairly polarizing figure in terms of US economic policy. He's fairly far to the left side of things, so conservatives usually don't like him or his ideas very much.

Still, most economists these days believe the best government economic policy is to raise taxes, reduce deficits and save for a rainy day during economic good times, then cut taxes and increase spending and run deficits during recessions. However, the policy of the economic boom of the early 2000s was to cut taxes and still run deficits and not save for a rainy day. Then, the economic crisis hit, and we weren't in a very strong position to deal with it.

It's challenging to compare the US to most european economies, if only because many european countries have very homogenous populations. Sweden and Norway are brilliant countries, but also have highly educated populations and fairly limited immigration. Ireland's economic troubles extend far, far before this current crisis. Recall that they basically spent the 90s in a civil war, which isn't really good for economic development. So it's tough to make apples-to-apples comparisons.

Still, to me it's pretty clear the US economic policies of the early 2000s benefited the very rich while squeezing the middle class. Mitt Romney wants to return to the economic policies of the George W. Bush administration. If you make over $250K a year, that could be very good for you, but for the rest of us, it would likely be a lot more negative than positive.

CinemaGoddess

I just want to time travel to 1996 when gas was 69 cents/gallon and the worst thing about our world was that the president got it on in the Oval Office with a woman who was not his wife. 

 

LadyXaverian

AshleyMichelle06:

I wouldn't mind paying higher taxes for things like health care and education and maternity leave. It would mean less out of pocket costs for these things, right?

Yes. 

write2nicole

LoisLane23:

LuckyDad:

However, the policy of the economic boom of the early 2000s was to cut taxes and still run deficits and not save for a rainy day.

This is the American dream. Why save for later what you can spend today?

A penny saved is a penny lost.

kcisthebombdotcom

Ooh, I will!

Well, Sweden doing so well isn't because they have a lot of welfare (which they pay out the as$ in taxes for). They had a surplus before the recession even hit, so naturally they weren't hit as hard. They also boosted spending by dropping interest rates before it had a chance to get bad. They also did cut a lot of their welfare in the 90s when their economy tanked to save cash.

Kind of along the same lines, in places like Italy and Spain, there's limited welfare programs. Instead, when the economy hits a tough time, people rely on family instead. Something like 60% of people from 25-35 with children live with their parents who help out with their kids. Instead of being a welfare state, it's more of a "family" state where people help each other out instead of counting on the government to help. On one hand, it does reduce spending/deficit. On the other hand, it makes recovery slower since people don't move around as much to gain a new job.

Thoughts on that?

CinemaGoddess

The reason that the government can't help in Italy and Spain is because those gov'ts are broke as a joke and can barely function at all, let alone function in any capacity to help out the poor of those countries. 

See also:  Greece. 

It's not because of "family" helping.  People in those countries are quite literally starving to death because of the respective country's economic failure. 

write2nicole

KC's reference to Italy/Spain as "family states" where people are just getting help from their families instead of from the government reminds me of when Colbert said, "Yeah, but Ireland will be fine. They do well with poverty." (Not an exact quote, but you get the idea.)

I wonder how those in Italy and Spain would feel about her depiction. From what I've heard, they're not very happy with their situations at all.

CinemaGoddess

Maybe Jonathan Swift was onto something, guise. 

kcisthebombdotcom

CinemaGoddess:

The reason that the government can't help in Italy and Spain is because those gov'ts are broke as a joke and can barely function at all, let alone function in any capacity to help out the poor of those countries. 

See also:  Greece. 

It's not because of "family" helping.  People in those countries are quite literally starving to death because of the respective country's economic failure. 

Yes, they are struggling now.

But back in the 80s-not so much. And a lot of that boom was because they didn't have a lot of governement spending on things like welfare.

CinemaGoddess

We're not talking about the 80s.  We're talking about right now. 

CinemaGoddess

FWIW - The "welfare state" did not destroy this country economically. 

kcisthebombdotcom

CinemaGoddess:

FWIW - The "welfare state" did not destroy this country economically. 

I'm talking about long-term/bigger picture. Not just the state of the economy presently.

Welfare spending is making the deficit grow out of control. Please refer to this if we continue down this path:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:GAO_Slide.png

Venus04d

KC_13:

CinemaGoddess:

FWIW - The "welfare state" did not destroy this country economically. 

I'm talking about long-term/bigger picture. Not just the state of the economy presently.

Welfare spending is making the deficit grow out of control. Please refer to this if we continue down this path:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:GAO_Slide.png

I just don't understand how you can peg welfare as being THE problem with our deficit. With the absurd military spending, wasteful money spent due to governmental inefficiencies, funding for wars, and lack of money coming into our economy due to tax cuts for the wealthy it seems misguided to blame the economic turmoil on the poorest in our country.  People on welfare, spend their money because they have no choice which further stimulates our economy. Wealthy people and corporations with tax cuts and deregulation hoard their money and put it in banks offshore, doing nothing for our economy. They certainly aren't creating jobs with it.

CinemaGoddess

Oddly enough, the two largest economic recessions/depressions in this country's history were directly linked to economic speculation, not welfare or anything even remotely related to welfare. 

 

grr_aargh

CinemaGoddess:

Maybe Jonathan Swift was onto something, guise. 

Mmmmmmm.  Babies.

 

I love how somebody called Krugman "kind of leftist."  That's like saying Marx was "kind of Marxist."  Krugman's a Keynesian who thinks that the biggest problem with the stimulus package was that it was too small. 

 And he's right. 

Here's an interesting query. . . what's the relationship between the cost of our unnecessary decade-long wars and the deficit? Anybody looked lately?  It's practically 1:1.  

 

Why are we talking about welfare and the welfare state when we should be talking about war and the war state?  

grr_aargh

KC_13:

CinemaGoddess:

FWIW - The "welfare state" did not destroy this country economically. 

I'm talking about long-term/bigger picture. Not just the state of the economy presently.

Welfare spending is making the deficit grow out of control. Please refer to this if we continue down this path:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:GAO_Slide.png

Welfare, stimulus, and unemployment have actually been proven to have about a $1.80 return on every $1 invested.

 

Fascinating, isn't it?  For more information, feel free to read the New Yorker's piece on Keynes from earlier this year.  It'll give everyone more insight into Krugman as well.  As a friend of mine likes to say, "Keynes was a lot of things.  Wrong wasn't one of them."

 

 

kcisthebombdotcom

Venus04d:

KC_13:

CinemaGoddess:

FWIW - The "welfare state" did not destroy this country economically. 

I'm talking about long-term/bigger picture. Not just the state of the economy presently.

Welfare spending is making the deficit grow out of control. Please refer to this if we continue down this path:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:GAO_Slide.png

I just don't understand how you can peg welfare as being THE problem with our deficit. With the absurd military spending, wasteful money spent due to governmental inefficiencies, funding for wars, and lack of money coming into our economy due to tax cuts for the wealthy it seems misguided to blame the economic turmoil on the poorest in our country.  People on welfare, spend their money because they have no choice which further stimulates our economy. Wealthy people and corporations with tax cuts and deregulation hoard their money and put it in banks offshore, doing nothing for our economy. They certainly aren't creating jobs with it.

Well, considering entitlement programs covers over half our spending, it's a pretty substantial problem, no?

And yes, there are a million and one other issues besides welfare spending-I agree. Funding for wars is a huge problem, but also a short lived one and only accounts for 20% of spending.

CinemaGoddess

Funding for wars doesn't mean just funding actual wars.  It includes overall military spending.  

Look into Ronald Reagan's policies on military spending and the deficit that caused.

Then go listen to "Born in the USA" and "Pink Houses". 

You can say anything will cause economic downfalls.  Anything. 

The point is, there are some very clear reasons why we are currently in a recession.  Welfare is extreeeeeeeemly low on that list, if it even makes the list at all.

LuckyDad

KC_13:

Well, considering entitlement programs covers over half our spending, it's a pretty substantial problem, no?

And yes, there are a million and one other issues besides welfare spending-I agree. Funding for wars is a huge problem, but also a short lived one and only accounts for 20% of spending.

Damn those Baby Boomers for living longer and getting old!

Seriously though, a huge chunk of entitlement spending is Social Security and Medicare. As a country we are faced with some very difficult choices. Do we raise taxes, or raise the cost of Grandma and Grandpa's pills? Do older people really *need* to have their monthly check go up with the rate of inflation? Maybe we should raise the retirement age to 69? 70? Or maybe we should just let the Bush Tax Cuts expire and fix the deficit that way?

It's probably moot, because old people vote in droves, so there's not going to be any cuts in Social Security (Keep your government hands off my medicare!) But we can't have low taxes AND good government services. Gotta pick one.

Venus04d

KC_13:

Venus04d:

KC_13:

CinemaGoddess:

FWIW - The "welfare state" did not destroy this country economically. 

I'm talking about long-term/bigger picture. Not just the state of the economy presently.

Welfare spending is making the deficit grow out of control. Please refer to this if we continue down this path:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:GAO_Slide.png

I just don't understand how you can peg welfare as being THE problem with our deficit. With the absurd military spending, wasteful money spent due to governmental inefficiencies, funding for wars, and lack of money coming into our economy due to tax cuts for the wealthy it seems misguided to blame the economic turmoil on the poorest in our country.  People on welfare, spend their money because they have no choice which further stimulates our economy. Wealthy people and corporations with tax cuts and deregulation hoard their money and put it in banks offshore, doing nothing for our economy. They certainly aren't creating jobs with it.

Well, considering entitlement programs covers over half our spending, it's a pretty substantial problem, no?

And yes, there are a million and one other issues besides welfare spending-I agree. Funding for wars is a huge problem, but also a short lived one and only accounts for 20% of spending.

https://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3677

This shows that 73% of those entitlement programs go to the elderly and the disabled. Do you suggest we do away with these programs? Just take the disabled and the elderly out behind a barn and shoot them or should we just let them starve slowly?  

We need to raise taxes, especially on the wealthy. We need to stop fighting senseless wars. Those "short lived" problems as you called them are the reason we're in this mess. We can't just get over their cost like it was some small hiccup. The government should be spending MORE on entitlement programs, infrastructure, and education. When the people prosper, so follows the country. 

grr_aargh

CinemaGoddess:

Funding for wars doesn't mean just funding actual wars.  It includes overall military spending.  

Look into Ronald Reagan's policies on military spending and the deficit that caused.

Then go listen to "Born in the USA" and "Pink Houses". 

You can say anything will cause economic downfalls.  Anything. 

The point is, there are some very clear reasons why we are currently in a recession.  Welfare is extreeeeeeeemly low on that list, if it even makes the list at all.

I agree.  

Venus04d

LuckyDad:

KC_13:

Well, considering entitlement programs covers over half our spending, it's a pretty substantial problem, no?

And yes, there are a million and one other issues besides welfare spending-I agree. Funding for wars is a huge problem, but also a short lived one and only accounts for 20% of spending.

Damn those Baby Boomers for living longer and getting old!

Seriously though, a huge chunk of entitlement spending is Social Security and Medicare. As a country we are faced with some very difficult choices. Do we raise taxes, or raise the cost of Grandma and Grandpa's pills? Do older people really *need* to have their monthly check go up with the rate of inflation? Maybe we should raise the retirement age to 69? 70? Or maybe we should just let the Bush Tax Cuts expire and fix the deficit that way?

It's probably moot, because old people vote in droves, so there's not going to be any cuts in Social Security (Keep your government hands off my medicare!) But we can't have low taxes AND good government services. Gotta pick one.

I wish I could bold your last sentence, because that is exactly the point and when choosing between the two it is the difference between a country where the rich get richer, the poorer get poorer and the middle class disappears versus the overall prosperity of every citizen in this country. That is what we had in the 90's and anyone who doesn't want that back, must be very wealthy or very stupid. 

grr_aargh

My solution, Venus?  Soylent Green.  It's people, yo. 

kcisthebombdotcom

CinemaGoddess:

Funding for wars doesn't mean just funding actual wars.  It includes overall military spending.  

Look into Ronald Reagan's policies on military spending and the deficit that caused.

Then go listen to "Born in the USA" and "Pink Houses". 

You can say anything will cause economic downfalls.  Anything. 

The point is, there are some very clear reasons why we are currently in a recession.  Welfare is extreeeeeeeemly low on that list, if it even makes the list at all.

I never said we were in a recession because of welfare. Where did I say that? I think we need to cut welfare spending because long term, it's going to turn into social security which is going to be abolished because we simply can't afford it.

CinemaGoddess

KC_13:

CinemaGoddess:

Funding for wars doesn't mean just funding actual wars.  It includes overall military spending.  

Look into Ronald Reagan's policies on military spending and the deficit that caused.

Then go listen to "Born in the USA" and "Pink Houses". 

You can say anything will cause economic downfalls.  Anything. 

The point is, there are some very clear reasons why we are currently in a recession.  Welfare is extreeeeeeeemly low on that list, if it even makes the list at all.

I never said we were in a recession because of welfare. Where did I say that? I think we need to cut welfare spending because long term, it's going to turn into social security which is going to be abolished because we simply can't afford it.

You said that the entitlement programs and the welfare state will destroy this country's economy in the future.

I'm pointing out that speculation has caused the two biggest recessions/depressions in this country's history.

You said that spending for wars was "short term" and I was pointing out that military and defense spending is not just during wartime, but going on during peacetime as well and the president with the largest amount of defense spending in the last 30 years put us into a huge deficit.

It was not Welfare, Social Security or other "entitlement" programs that put us into our current economic situation and it's likely not going to cause an economic downturn in the future.

We do not live in "Atlas Shrugged". 

grr_aargh

CinemaGoddess:

We do not live in "Atlas Shrugged". 

Yeah, but trains though. . .  

CinemaGoddess

Copper mines in Mexico, yo. 

Emjay wrote John Galt's speech in like 30 seconds.  Just FYI. 

kcisthebombdotcom

Venus04d:

KC_13:

Venus04d:

KC_13:

CinemaGoddess:

FWIW - The "welfare state" did not destroy this country economically. 

I'm talking about long-term/bigger picture. Not just the state of the economy presently.

Welfare spending is making the deficit grow out of control. Please refer to this if we continue down this path:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:GAO_Slide.png

I just don't understand how you can peg welfare as being THE problem with our deficit. With the absurd military spending, wasteful money spent due to governmental inefficiencies, funding for wars, and lack of money coming into our economy due to tax cuts for the wealthy it seems misguided to blame the economic turmoil on the poorest in our country.  People on welfare, spend their money because they have no choice which further stimulates our economy. Wealthy people and corporations with tax cuts and deregulation hoard their money and put it in banks offshore, doing nothing for our economy. They certainly aren't creating jobs with it.

Well, considering entitlement programs covers over half our spending, it's a pretty substantial problem, no?

And yes, there are a million and one other issues besides welfare spending-I agree. Funding for wars is a huge problem, but also a short lived one and only accounts for 20% of spending.

https://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3677

This shows that 73% of those entitlement programs go to the elderly and the disabled. Do you suggest we do away with these programs? Just take the disabled and the elderly out behind a barn and shoot them or should we just let them starve slowly?  

We need to raise taxes, especially on the wealthy. We need to stop fighting senseless wars. Those "short lived" problems as you called them are the reason we're in this mess. We can't just get over their cost like it was some small hiccup. The government should be spending MORE on entitlement programs, infrastructure, and education. When the people prosper, so follows the country. 

Eh, "disabled" is a loose term in this country. Like my morbidly obese neighbors who collect disability because they can't put down the twinkees and go for a walk. But that's neither here nor there...

I do agree with tax hikes, cutting back on stupid wars, and spending more on education. I think the focus of welfare should be educating those in poverty so they can learn the skills necessary to be self sufficient vs giving out more in welfare spending.

I think spending should be focused on education and helping the working (key word working) poor. Welfare to work programs are great. Child care assistance is helpful. Job training programs are great. My state has a program which helps working class people pay for health insurance copays/premiums. Of course, there should continue to be programs to help special needs kids.

Err, I had more but my 2 year old is fussing. lol

CinemaGoddess

KC_13:

 

Eh, "disabled" is a loose term in this country. Like my morbidly obese neighbors who collect disability because they can't put down the twinkees and go for a walk. But that's neither here nor there...

 

 

What the everlasting f'uck. 

grr_aargh

CinemaGoddess:

Copper mines in Mexico, yo. 

Emjay wrote John Galt's speech in like 30 seconds.  Just FYI. 

My summary of Galt's speech went something like "blah blah  blah eff you losers blah blah obama's a commie" when my Dad asked if I'd ever read it.

He wasn't amused.

We tried to watch the movie.  Oh my god, it was like 90% B-roll footage of trains.  

grr_aargh

CinemaGoddess:

KC_13:

 

Eh, "disabled" is a loose term in this country. Like my morbidly obese neighbors who collect disability because they can't put down the twinkees and go for a walk. But that's neither here nor there...

 

 

What the everlasting f'uck. 

How KC sees all fat people:

 

CinemaGoddess

grr_aargh:

CinemaGoddess:

Copper mines in Mexico, yo. 

Emjay wrote John Galt's speech in like 30 seconds.  Just FYI. 

My summary of Galt's speech went something like "blah blah  blah eff you losers blah blah obama's a commie" when my Dad asked if I'd ever read it.

He wasn't amused.

We tried to watch the movie.  Oh my god, it was like 90% B-roll footage of trains.  

You mean the miniseries?  I tried watching that too.  It was horrible. 

Venus04d

CinemaGoddess:

KC_13:

 

Eh, "disabled" is a loose term in this country. Like my morbidly obese neighbors who collect disability because they can't put down the twinkees and go for a walk. But that's neither here nor there...

 

 

What the everlasting f'uck. 

That's my problem with the right wing. It's always just that simple. Like when my DH's boss told him the stimulus package wouldn't stimulate the country because poor people would just spend it on liquor.

A)That would stimulate the country more than the wealthy tucking it away in Switzerland.

That's blatant class discrimination, yo! What the fack? 

grr_aargh

CinemaGoddess:

grr_aargh:

CinemaGoddess:

Copper mines in Mexico, yo. 

Emjay wrote John Galt's speech in like 30 seconds.  Just FYI. 

My summary of Galt's speech went something like "blah blah  blah eff you losers blah blah obama's a commie" when my Dad asked if I'd ever read it.

He wasn't amused.

We tried to watch the movie.  Oh my god, it was like 90% B-roll footage of trains.  

You mean the miniseries?  I tried watching that too.  It was horrible. 

Nope.  Movie.  There's Atlas Shrugged Part 1.  It's terrible.  Really terrible.  It was made by some libertarian dude and opened to resounding audiences of very few.

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0480239/ 

Venus04d

CinemaGoddess:

grr_aargh:

CinemaGoddess:

Copper mines in Mexico, yo. 

Emjay wrote John Galt's speech in like 30 seconds.  Just FYI. 

My summary of Galt's speech went something like "blah blah  blah eff you losers blah blah obama's a commie" when my Dad asked if I'd ever read it.

He wasn't amused.

We tried to watch the movie.  Oh my god, it was like 90% B-roll footage of trains.  

You mean the miniseries?  I tried watching that too.  It was horrible. 

I couldn't do it. I tried. It was just horrid and I eat boring *** like miniseries up for breakfast. Why the all trains!?

Venus04d

P.s. Grrr....excellent Soylent Green reference!

CinemaGoddess

grr_aargh:

CinemaGoddess:

grr_aargh:

CinemaGoddess:

Copper mines in Mexico, yo. 

Emjay wrote John Galt's speech in like 30 seconds.  Just FYI. 

My summary of Galt's speech went something like "blah blah  blah eff you losers blah blah obama's a commie" when my Dad asked if I'd ever read it.

He wasn't amused.

We tried to watch the movie.  Oh my god, it was like 90% B-roll footage of trains.  

You mean the miniseries?  I tried watching that too.  It was horrible. 

Nope.  Movie.  There's Atlas Shrugged Part 1.  It's terrible.  Really terrible.  It was made by some libertarian dude and opened to resounding audiences of very few.

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0480239/ 

I didn't realize it was a movie.  I watched it on Netflix streaming and i thought it was a miniseries.

I'm really sad that the Hollywood version never came to fruition because Angelina was supposed to play Dagny and I would've loved to have seen that. 

grr_aargh

CinemaGoddess:

I didn't realize it was a movie.  I watched it on Netflix streaming and i thought it was a miniseries.

I'm really sad that the Hollywood version never came to fruition because Angelina was supposed to play Dagny and I would've loved to have seen that. 

DID YOU SEE WHEN IT WAS RELEASED?  April 15th!  Take THAT, Lib'ruls.

 

It was really terrible.  We made it through about 45 minutes before I told my husband I was going to hit myself with a ball peen hammer if I had to watch another second of it.  I really fundamentally dislike EYE-N RAND.  

Venus04d:

P.s. Grrr....excellent Soylent Green reference!

Nobody ever got fat on Soylent green, is all I'm saying.